DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 16-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (US 2023/0061550).
In respect to claims 1-3 and 7-8, Newman et al. disclose a protective case assembly configured to encase, protect, and present for viewing an object having a generally planar surface comprising: a front case assembly 14 having a transparent panel; a rear case assembly 12 configured for attachment to the front case assembly, also having a transparent panel; the rear case assembly configured to receive an object (memorabilia) 66 in an attached orientation with the front case assembly; the object being viewable through both of the transparent panels (0029); and a bezel 16 forming a cavity therein configured to receive that front and rear case assemblies in an attached orientation such that the object is visible through a plurality of apertures (the cavity being defined as the area between the apertures) in the bezel (front and back surfaces) (0029; Fig. 3). Newman et al. disclose the front case assembly 14 including upper fasteners and lower fasteners 90 on a first end and second end of a perimeter framing (Fig. 3); the rear case assembly includes threaded apertures 36* (0048) (Not shown in Figure 3) [See Response to Arguments] as the opposing fasteners Fig. 3).
In respect to the amended subject matter, Newman et al. further disclose that the fasteners 90 comprise an upper fastener 90 of the front case assembly 14 that aligns with an upper fastener (threaded aperture) 36 of the rear case assembly 12 and comprise a lower fastener 90 of the front case assembly 14 that aligns with a lower fastener (threaded aperture) 36 of the rear case assembly 12 (0048; Fig. 3); Newman et al. further disclose that the bezel 16 includes an interior fastener positioned within a bottom member of the bezel (e.g. 98f) (Fig. 9); the rear case assembly 12 includes an end fastener 102 located proximate the second end of the perimeter framing, and the interior fastener 98f connects with the end fastener 102 to removably connect the rear case assembly from the bezel (Fig. 3).
In respect to claims 5 and 10, Newman et al. disclose further disclose projecting tabs 60a-60d on spacer 24, which may be construed as an element of the front assembly 14, and recesses 56a-56d are configured to receive the projecting tabs (Fig. 5).
In respect to claims 6 and 16, the claims are indefinite for the reasons stated above, however, Newman et al. disclose that the transparent “glazing” panel of the rear case assembly may be made from Optimum Museum Glass (acrylic-based) (0033).
In respect to claim 11, Newman et al. disclose that the rear case assembly 12 includes a thick profile and thus a “thickened edge” (the claim does not require a thicker edge in comparison to another element, as broadly claimed).
In respect to claim 12, the claim is unclear for the reasons stated above, however, Newman et al. disclose that the width of the cavity extends the width of the thickened edge.
In respect to claim 13, Newman et al. disclose the thickened edge includes “opposing grip portions” since the recitation does not provide any particular structure, only an area (portions) and an intended use (gripping).
In respect to claims 17 and 18, Newman et al. disclose that the rear case assembly 12 includes a plurality of “end” fasteners 96a-96h which are connected with the” interior” fasteners 102 within the bezel 16 (Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 4, 9, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2023/0061550) in view of Cox (US 2021/0022467).
Newman et al. substantially disclose the claimed invention, including fasteners in all the positions claimed, but do not disclose that each of the opposed fasteners are rare-earth magnets, however, Cox teaches a similar protective case assembly for similar articles, which includes magnets 150/140 on opposing layers to be connected (Fig. 1), which may be rare-earth magnets (claim 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the screw and threaded hole fasteners with rare-earth magnets in view of Cox. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely the benefits of permanent magnets (e.g. rare-earth magnets) to provide a quick, instantly releasable, and clean attachment point.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US 2023/0061550).
Newman et al. inherently discloses “opposing grip portions” which may be any surface element of the “thickened edge”, however, do not disclose “surface treatments” in particular “in the form of a plurality of raised lines”. However, providing a surface pattern to a plastic is well-known in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, providing a textured pattern (e.g. raised lines) to plastic for at least aesthetic reasons. “Raised lines” is broad enough to encompass any general embossed pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant summarily contends that Newman et al. do not disclose the amended subject matter, however, as detailed above, Newman et al. disclose all of the amended subject matter.
It is noted that the rear fasteners (threaded apertures) 36 in which the fasteners 90 connect are not shown in Figure 3. Fasteners 26 were erroneously named as the fasteners (in both the action and the cited prior art), however, unshown fasteners (threaded aperatures) 36 (not shown) are clearly connec33ted with fasteners 102 to connect the front case assembly 14 to the rear case assembly 12 (Fig. 3). The details of the second set of fasteners dubbed the “interior fastener” (E.g. 98e) and “end fastener” 102 to removably connect the bezel from the rear case assembly as shown best in Figure 9.
The 35 USC 112 rejection has been obviated by amendment.
An attempt to contact the applicant for an Examiner’s Amendment was not successful.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-27-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637