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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, FIGS. 1-7B in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “clip (102) have” should be “clip (102) has”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “disposed of in midway” should be “disposed midway”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “exact” should be “exactly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “with formed” should be “and formed with”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4, 11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Respect to Claim 3
It recites the limitation "the pair of electronic device holder clips ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this should be taken to be a typo and to simply refer to the at least one electronic device holder clip, if it should be taken to require that the at least one electronic device holder clip include at least a pair of clips, or if it has some other scope.
For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes the phrase to be a typo and to mean “the at least one electronic device holder clip” to resolve the lack of antecedent basis.
With Respect to Claim 4
It is unclear what the scope of the recitation that the first surface is curved or inclined is, noting that it is unclear whether it should be narrowly interpreted to require that the first surface be inclined relative to the second surface, if it encompasses the first surface being inclined due to the overall structure being at an angle, or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 11
The phrase “partially along between” is not grammatically correct, and it is unclear whether “along” or “between” is a typo, if it is meant to mean “along and between”, or if it has some other scope. For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes it to mean “partially along and between”.
With Respect to Claim 15
It is unclear what the scope of the phrase “the at least one belt clip (103) is U-shaped” is, specifically whether it requires that each of the at least one belt clips be U-shaped, if it requires that the at least one belt clips all in combination form a U-shape together, if the limitation is met if at least one of the at least one belt clips be U-shaped, or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 17
It recites the limitation " the pair of holder clips ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this should be taken to be a typo and to simply refer to the at least one electronic device holder clip, if it should be taken to require that the at least one electronic device holder clip include at least a pair of clips, or if it has some other scope.
For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes the phrase to be a typo and to mean “the at least one electronic device holder clip” to resolve the lack of antecedent basis.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #8,818,465 to Gorham (Gorham). Gorham discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A phone holder (20) removably attachable to a seat belt (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see 600) for holding an electronic device (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see 500), comprising: a base portion (planar central portion having surface 26, alone or also including the ridge 42) substantially planar and having a first surface and an opposed second surface, wherein the base portion further comprises an upper edge and a lower edge, and a pair of side edges extending between the upper and lower edges; at least one electronic device holder clip (28, 30, 32), the at least one electronic device holder clip (28, 30, 32) is fixedly attached in proximity to the upper edge on the second surface (the edge it is attached to is taken to be the upper edge), the at least one electronic device holder clip is configured to retain the electronic device between the second surface of the base portion, and a curved inner portion (30, see e.g. FIG. 12) of the electronic device holder clip; at least one belt clip (46, alone or in combination with 44) with an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the at least one belt clip is fixedly attached in proximity to the lower edge on the first surface; and wherein, the first surface of the base portion and the inner surface of the at least one belt clip are configured to removably secure the phone holder over the seat belt, when the seat belt is passed therethrough.
With Respect to Claim 2
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the base portion is substantially rectangular in shape with at least rounded corners or pointed corners (see, e.g. FIG. 4).
With Respect to Claim 3
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic device holder clip have a flexible configuration that is biased toward an opposed second surface to secure the electronic device between the pair of electronic device holder clips and the second surface of the base portion (mobile phone retainer 28 is disclosed as resiliently connected to the mobile phone-receiving surface 26 by side wall 32, and so will perform as claimed).
With Respect to Claim 4
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the first surface of the base portion is curved or inclined (noting inclined portion of sidewall, best seen in FIG. 5) extending from the lower edge to the upper edge between the pair of side edges (the incline extends in this direction).
With Respect to Claim 5
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the first surface of the base portion comprises a ramp (FIG. 5 shows two inclined areas that are ramps to the extent claimed) configured thereon.
With Respect to Claim 6
The phone holder of claim 5, wherein the ramp is curved or inclined and extends between the lower edge, and the upper edge (as shown, it is inclined and extends between the lower edge and the upper edge to the extent claimed as it extends in that direction).
With Respect to Claim 11
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one belt clip (46) extends partially along between the pair of side edges (see, e.g. FIGS. 3-4, 6).
With Respect to Claim 15
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one belt clip (taken to be 46 in combination with 44) is U-shaped with formed using two vertical arms and a horizontal arm (noting that 44 is formed in this fashion, which is considered sufficient to meet this claim language).
With Respect to Claim 16
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic device holder clip is substantially L-shaped and comprises an upwardly extending portion, and the curved inner portion (see, e.g. FIG. 12).
With Respect to Claim 17
The phone holder of claim 16, wherein an end of the upwardly extending portion of each of the pair of holder clips is attached in proximity to the upper end on the second surface, and an opposing end is connected to the curved inner portion (see, e.g. FIG. 12).
Claims 1-4, 10, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2018/0303230 to Haas (Haas). Haas discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A phone holder (inasmuch as it is capable of holding an appropriate phone) removably attachable to a seat belt (capable of this use, e.g. via 26) for holding an electronic device (capable of this use), comprising: a base portion (24) substantially planar and having a first surface and an opposed second surface, wherein the base portion further comprises an upper edge (taken to be the edge shown at the bottom in FIG. 3 to which 42 attaches) and a lower edge (taken to be the edge shown as the top in the orientation of FIG. 3, to which 18 attaches), and a pair of side edges extending between the upper and lower edges; at least one electronic device holder clip (42, 44), the at least one electronic device holder clip (42, 44) is fixedly attached in proximity to the upper edge on the second surface, the at least one electronic device holder clip is configured to retain the electronic device between the second surface of the base portion, and a curved inner portion (noting 42 and 44 as shown have a curved interior/inner portion) of the electronic device holder clip; at least one belt clip (18, 22) with an outer surface and an inner surface, wherein the at least one belt clip is fixedly attached in proximity to the lower edge on the first surface; and wherein, the first surface of the base portion and the inner surface of the at least one belt clip are configured to removably secure the phone holder over the seat belt, when the seat belt is passed therethrough (capable of this use with an appropriate seat belt).
With Respect to Claim 2
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the base portion (101) is substantially rectangular in shape with at least rounded corners or pointed corners (IFG. 4 shows pointed corners).
With Respect to Claim 3
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic device holder clip have a flexible configuration that is biased toward an opposed second surface to secure the electronic device between the pair of electronic device holder clips and the second surface of the base portion (noting disclosure that it is resilient).
With Respect to Claim 4
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the first surface of the base portion (101) is curved or inclined extending from the lower edge to the upper edge between the pair of side edges (FIG. 3 shows that it will be inclined relative to the ground or a similar horizontal surface).
With Respect to Claim 10
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one belt clip extends along the entire length between the pair of side edges.
With Respect to Claim 13
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one belt clip (103) extends beyond the height of the base portion (see, e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 14
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one belt clip (103) is at least substantially flat and substantially similar in shape to that of the base portion (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-4, noting that both are rectangular with the belt clip being only slightly more elongated and so they are clearly substantially similar in shape).
With Respect to Claim 16
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic device holder clip is substantially L-shaped and comprises an upwardly extending portion, and the curved inner portion.
With Respect to Claim 17
The phone holder of claim 16, wherein an end of the upwardly extending portion of each of the pair of holder clips is attached in proximity to the upper end on the second surface, and an opposing end is connected to the curved inner portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,818,465 to Gorham (Gorham).
With Respect to Claim 10
The phone holder of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one belt clip extends along the entire length between the pair of side edges.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the belt clip so as to extend the entire length between the side edges in order to provide a larger attachment area to better secure and stabilize the holder, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With Respect to Claim 12
The phone holder of claim1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one belt clip extends exact to the height of the base portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the belt clip and the base portion be the same height, in order to secure a device of that size (i.e.height approximately the same as the seat belt width) or to secure to a larger seat belt, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With Respect to Claim 15
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 15 above under 35 USC 102, although Examiner maintains that the scope of the indefinite claim language (see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above) is met by Gorham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application given the disclosure of Gorham to form one of the two belt clips with a U-shape to also form the second one with a U-shape in order to reduce weight, reduce cost, increase flexibility of the clip, to improve aesthetic appeal by increasing symmetry, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
The phone holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one belt clip (taken to be 46 in combination with 44) is U-shaped with formed using two vertical arms and a horizontal arm (noting that 44 is formed in this fashion, which is considered sufficient to meet this claim language).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2018/0303230 to Haas (Haas).
With Respect to Claim 12
The phone holder of claim1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one belt clip (103) extends exact to the height of the base portion (101).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the belt clip have the exact same height as the base portion, to reduce weight and save on costs, as there is no particular disclosed benefit to the additional length beyond the height of the base portion, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With Respect to Claim 14
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 14 above under 35 USC 102, making the belt clip the same height as the base portion will also result in it being the same shape, which even more clearly meets the limitations of claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: U.S. Patent #4,358,036 discloses a similar belt clip with a similar ramp between the clip and the base portion, but the ramp is on the clip rather than the base portion and there is insufficient motivation to modify the structure to locate the ramp on the base portion absent impermissible hindsight; additionally, none of the other prior art, alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734