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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, the limitations “the docking-connector magnetic-attachment system comprises a magnetic element and is centered laterally on the docking accessory platform” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Because Applicant failed to clarify and provide the support for the above limitations discussed in the previous office action, Examiner reject claims 1 based on the following reasons:
Where is the magnetic element?
What is the support for “centered laterally on the docking accessory platform”?
Applicant argued, on 1/28/26, that the drawing shown the claimed limitations. However, there is no way to determine the claimed limitations unless Applicant claimed “substantially”.
A mobile device with uneven or non-centered laterally design is very common in the art. For example: the prior art in Fig 1, Applicant’s fig 2, fig 3, fig 4, fig 5, fig 6, fig 7, fig 10, fig 11, fig 12, fig 13, fig 14, and fig 15 clearly shows uneven or not a centered-lateral design and the location of the accessory cavities are all uneven and/or NOT centered-lateral.
Most importantly, there is no support found in the SPEC.
In Claim 1, the limitations “(ii) an alignment structure formed at least partly beneath the external back surface of the platform, wherein the alignment structure is: (a) elongated along the length of the docking-accessory platform, (b) centered laterally on the docking-accessory platform, and (c) disposed in a plane parallel to the plane of the annular docking-connector magnetic-attachment system; (iii) an internal back portion opposite the external back surface of the platform, wherein the internal back portion faces a back surface of the mobile electronic device when coupled to the mobile electronic device” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Because Applicant failed to clarify and provide the support for the above limitations discussed in the previous office action, Examiner reject claims 1 based on the following reasons:
Where is the “alignment structure”?
Based on the above rejection, there is no support for the “centered laterally on the docking accessory platform” as well.
Where is the “internal back portion”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, all the limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see above rejections), and/or the claim objections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rothbaum (US 20110192857).
With regard claim 1, Rothbaum discloses A docking accessory platform for a mobile electronic device, the platform (abstract, see also any embodiment amount fig 1-65) comprising:(i) an annular docking-connector magnetic-attachment system (any magnetic-attachment system with any annular shape, Examiner consider as an annular docking-connector magnetic-attachment system; for example: fig 57-65 and/or fig 31-38; at least 5704 and/or 5710) formed at least partly beneath an external back surface of the platform (at least fig 57-64; magnetic-attachment system formed beneath an external back surface of the platform; see also fig 30-38), wherein the docking-connector magnetic-attachment system comprises a magnetic element (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [247]-[259] ; see also fig 30-38) and is centered laterally on the docking accessory platform (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [247]-[259] ; see also fig 30-38); (ii) an alignment structure formed at least partly beneath the external back surface of the platform (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [247]-[259] ; see also fig 30-38; Examiner consider any structure aligned with the other side of the component is the alignment structure; and/or the user aware the alignment is proper only if the signal is passed through between components; at least 5704 and/or 5710, and/or 6004), wherein the alignment structure is:(a) elongated along the length of the docking-accessory platform (paragraph [251]-[258]; any length in any view points),(b) centered laterally on the docking-accessory platform (at least fig 57-64; see also fig 30-38), and(c) disposed in a plane parallel to the plane of the annular docking- connector magnetic-attachment system (at least fig 57-64; see also fig 30-38); iii an internal back portion opposite the external back surface of the platform, wherein the internal back portion faces a back surface of the mobile electronic device when coupled to the mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [247]-[259] ; see also fig 30-38), and iv) a side portion that extends around at least a portion of a side of the mobile electronic device adjacent to the back surface of the mobile electronic device when the platform is coupled to the mobile electronic device (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [247]-[259] ; see also fig 30-38), wherein the docking-connector magnetic-attachment system is configured to detachably attach a compatible power accessory to the platform (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [247]-[259] ; see also fig 30-38). Examiner’s note: the amended limitations are not supported by the SPEC/drawing. Examiner also notice that Applicant didn’t provide any arguments based on the cited art.
Regarding claim 14, Rothbaum further disclosed the annular docking-connector magnetic-attachment system and alignment structure are configured to jointly orient the compatible power accessory on the external back surface of the platform (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [246]-[261] ; see also fig 30-38).
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.
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 of this title, 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 2-7, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothbaum (US 20110192857) in view of Stoner (US 20120112553).
With regard claim 2, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the mobile electronic device is configured to identify the power accessory based on accessory information that is wirelessly received from the power accessory.
Stoner further teaches: the electronic device is configured to identify the other device based on information that is wirelessly received from the device (at least fig 9-11; paragraph [45]-[51]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (identify based on information that is wirelessly received from the other device) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the communication between the mobile device and the power accessory) so as to further improve the performance/security of the modified structure.
Regarding claim 3, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the mobile electronic device is configured to perform a function based on the accessory information (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [246]-[261]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the function is specific to a type of the power accessory (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [246]-[261]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the mobile electronic device is configured to make a determination as to whether the power accessory is magnetically attached to the mobile electronic device before performing the function based on the accessory information provided by the power accessory (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [246]-[261]; see also Stoner’s fig 9-11; paragraph [45]-[51] ; see also fig 30-38).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the power accessory is configured to detachably attach to the platform (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [246]-[261] ; see also fig 30-38).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rothbaum further disclosed the power accessory comprises a first magnetic docking-connector portion operable to form a detachable attachment with the annular docking-connector magnetic-attachment system of the platform (at least fig 57-64; paragraph [246]-[261] ; see also fig 30-38).
With regard claim 11, The primary art discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the mobile electronic device is configured to make the determination as to whether the power accessory is magnetically attached to the mobile electronic device based on wireless communication with the power accessory using a wireless communication standard having a range of no greater than 4 cm.
Stoner further teaches: the mobile electronic device is configured to make the determination as to whether the other device is attached to the mobile electronic device based on wireless communication with the device using a wireless communication standard (at least fig 9-11; paragraph [45]-[51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include this feature and modify to previous discussed structure so as to have (Rothbaum in view of Stoner): the mobile electronic device (Rothbaum) is configured to make the determination as to whether the power accessory (Rothbaum) is magnetically attached to the mobile electronic device (Rothbaum) based on wireless communication (Stoner) with the power accessory (Rothbaum) using a wireless communication standard (Stoner).
The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to improve the efficiency and/or security of the device.
Rothbaum in view of Stoner lack teaching: wireless communication standard having a range of no greater than 4 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time and/or before the effective filing date the invention was made to have wireless communication standard having a range of no greater than 4 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to improve the efficiency and/or security of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Applicant submits that there is full support in the elected embodiment (and throughout the specification generally) for the claimed invention of amended claims 1. By way of example only, platform 1510 of FIG. 15B comprises a "an annular docking-connector magnetic-attachment system formed at least partly beneath an external back surface of the platform, wherein the docking-connector magnetic-attachment system comprises a magnetic element and is centered laterally on the docking accessory platform," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, FIG. 15B depicts …. ” (pages 9-10).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Applicant cited a large number of MPEP paragraphs and SPEC paragraphs. However no any paragraph support the claimed limitations.
In this office action, Examiner rejection the limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as Applicant failed to provide the support on the SPEC.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Regarding this rejection, the Office Action provides no substantive analysis of how Rothbaum, for example, is alleged to disclose the various limitations of claim 1. A rejection consisting of only citations to a large number of figures and/or paragraphs does not represent the kind of reasoned analysis required under the MPEP.” (pages 9 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
As discussed above, the claim limitations are unclear and no support by SPEC, so the rejections are also broadly rejected based on the cited arts.
Most of the cited figures only have a couple of elements, for example Fig 57 only have 57045/710, ordinary skill in the art should know how to find the items on the SPEC.
Most importantly, Applicant only cited a large number of MPEP paragraphs but failed to argue any limitations against the cited art. Therefore, the cited art successfully disclosed all the limitations in all the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights