Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
CLAIM OBJECTION
3. Claims 3 & 7 & 10 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. Interpreting the claims in light of the specification, examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in the claim (3 & 7 & 10). Claims 4 & 8 are also objected since they depend upon the above claims.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 102 as being clearly anticipated by McCullough (Pub No. US 2024/0125343).
Regarding claim 1, McCullough discloses modular individualized phone case, comprising a case body (Fig. 1 & 8: Phone case 100), and a modular modeling component, wherein the modular modeling component comprises a plurality of modeling modules which are configured to be combined to form different looks (Fig. 5 & 8: modular modeling component-102 combined to form different looks. Different structure looks on the back of the cover) & (Para. 32 & 36: design element and ornamental image & Para. 47-48: structure created by attaching multiple components), and the modeling modules are fixed in the case body or on a rear surface of a phone (Fig. 8: Multiple structure 102 fixed on the phone case & Fig. 3 & 5 & 34).
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
7. 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, 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCullough (Pub No. US 2024/0125343), in view of Hegemier et al (Pub No. 2015/0111623) and further in view of Foreign document (KR 20-0321574).
Regarding claim 2, McCullough discloses the modular modeling component is attracted and fixed onto a rear side surface of the back plate (Fig. 5 & 8: modular modeling component-102 combined to form different looks on the back of the device casing & Para. 47-48: structure created by attaching multiple components).
McCullough is silent regarding a back plate, wherein the back plate is detachably arranged in the case body, the back plate is a ferromagnetic metal plate, and the modular modeling component is attracted and fixed onto a rear side surface of the back plate, and the modeling modules are magnetic attraction sheets; the modeling modules comprise a plurality of figure modeling sub-modules which are configured to be combined into human-like figures, a plurality of clothing modeling sub-modules which are configured to dress the human-like figures, and a plurality of decoration sub-modules which are configured to decorate the human-like figures; or, the modeling modules comprise a plurality of two-dimensional geometric sub-modules which are configured to be combined into two-dimensional graphics.
Hegemier et al discloses a back plate (Fig. 2A: Back plate-13), wherein the back plate is detachably arranged in the case body (Para. 65 & Fig. 2A: Back plate-13), the back plate is a ferromagnetic metal plate (Para. 167: Plate can be magnetic material), and the modeling modules are magnetic attraction sheets (Fig. 14A & Para. 105: Different design element & Para. 167: Plate can be magnetic material) & (Para. 120); the modeling modules comprise a plurality of figure modeling sub-modules which are configured to be combined into human-like figures (Fig. 2A-2B: Human like figure on the back of the cover).
Foreign document (KR 20-0321574) discloses a plurality of clothing modeling sub-modules which are configured to dress the human-like figures (Fig. 1 & 2 & 4: human like clothing modeling sub-modules), and a plurality of decoration sub-modules which are configured to decorate the human-like figures (Fig. 2 & 4 & 6: Girl figure); or the modeling modules comprise a plurality of two-dimensional geometric sub-modules which are configured to be combined into two-dimensional graphics (Fig. 2 & 4 & 6: Girl figure on the the phone cover).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use human shape of a phone cover to decorate the cover and configure the image differently based on user’s expectation to customize the device casing.
Regarding claim 5, McCullough discloses the case body is a one-piece case body, an elastic bracket is provided in the case body (Fig. 6), one end of the bracket is connected with a side of the case body (Fig. 6 & 10 & Para. 43).
McCullough is silent regarding the other end is parallel to a bottom plate of the case body and extends inward, and when the phone case is fixed to the phone, the back plate is clamped between the bracket and the phone, and the modeling modules are located between the back plate and the bottom plate of the case body.
Hegemier et al discloses the other end is parallel to a bottom plate of the case body and extends inward (Fig. 6A), and when the phone case is fixed to the phone (Fig. 6C), the back plate is clamped between the bracket and the phone (Para. 65 & Fig. 2A: Back plate-13), and the modeling modules are located between the back plate and the bottom plate of the case body (Para. 65 & Fig. 2A & 2B: Human figure model between the case) & (Abstract & Fig. 14A).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use back plate of a phone cover to decorate the cover and configure the casing differently based on user’s expectation to customize the device casing.
Regarding claim 6, McCullough is silent regarding the number of the bracket is four, and the four brackets are distributed at four corners of the case body.
Hegemier et al discloses the number of the bracket is four, and the four brackets are distributed at four corners of the case body (Fig. 8A & 8B: Four side bracket has four corners).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use back plate of a phone cover to decorate the cover and configure the casing differently based on user’s expectation to customize the device casing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCullough (Pub No. US 2024/0125343), in view of Hegemier et al (Pub No. 2015/0111623), in view of Foreign document (KR 20-0321574) further in view of Kim et al (Pub No. 2018/0344004).
Regarding claim 9, McCullough discloses the case body is a snap-on case body (Fig. 10: Case snap the phone), which comprises a case main body and a snap-on cover, wherein a mounting cavity is defined on a rear side of the case main body (Fig. 9 & 6: cavity on the case), and a clamping groove is defined on a side portion of the mounting cavity (Fig. 9 & 13: Groove and cavity to hold device).
McCullough is silent regarding a hook which extends forward and is adapted to the clamping groove is provided at an edge of the snap-on cover, the back plate is arranged in the mounting cavity, and the back plate is pressed against the bottom of the mounting cavity by the top of the hook.
Kim et al discloses a hook which extends forward and is adapted to the clamping groove is provided at an edge of the snap-on cover (Para. 22 & 43-44: clamping groove & Hinge hook & Para. 48: fixing magnet-43A extending), the back plate is arranged in the mounting cavity (Fig. 4: Cavity), and the back plate is pressed against the bottom of the mounting cavity by the top of the hook (Fig. 3-4 & 48: plate is pressed against the mounting cavity).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use a phone to configure the casing differently to customize the device casing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648