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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final action for application #17/137889, Expandable Device For A Portable Electronic Device, filed 12/30/2020. Claims 1, 5, 19-23 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant's reply dated 6/16/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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, the locking device as claimed must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter will be entered. In Figures 1 and 2, while the 1st locking region (132) is depicted as an elongated protrusion (133), the 2nd locking region is not depicted. The Applicant added a labeled rectangular box 137, which is new matter, and additionally does not resolve the 112 rejections. From the specification and drawings it is clear that the first locking region (132) is an elongated protrusion (133). The specification discloses that there is a second locking region comprising a groove. However, the original drawings did not disclose this. The second locking “region” 136 points to the sidewall of the base 102. Therefore, the “region” itself is not clear. Then the slot or groove is identified by numeral 137 in original Figures 1 and 2, but no slot of groove was depicted. The leader line just pointed to the upper surface of the base 102. The specification discloses that the elongated protrusion is received within the groove. However, from viewing the drawings, the functionality of what is depicted is not clear. For example, the elongated protrusion extends at an angle from the button. It is not clear if this protrusion is fixed and passes through the base at that angle, or if there is some type of pivoting structure for the elongated protrusion. It is not clear if only the end portion of the elongated protrusion is received in a slot, or the entirety of the elongated protrusion. Neither original figures 1 or 2 depict a slot or groove. The labeled rectangular box added to Figure 1 is new matter since the orientation, size, depth etc of the groove is not disclosed in the specification. The portion of the elongated protrusion received in the groove is not disclosed in the specification. And lastly, the position of the labeled rectangular box, while located at the location of the original leader line in Figure 1 as argued by the Applicant, does not match the location of 137 in Figure 2. In figure 1, the location of 137 appears directly next to the base of the right leg. In Figure 2, 136/137 is located towards the center of the base. The Examiner suggests removing the locking mechanism from the claims. While locking may be functionally claimed, the specifics of the locking mechanism structure does not have enough support and clarity in the application.
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, the tab must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The locking region is depicted as comprising an elongated protrusion 133, not a tab.
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 § 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 1, 5, and 19-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
-A second locking region in the form of a groove disposed on a portion of the base, wherein the protrusion and the groove are configured to form a frictional connection to resist biasing forces exerted by the plurality of foldable legs is claimed. However, this is unclear. By viewing Figures 1 and 2, it can be seen that there is a first locking region (132) comprising an elongated protrusion (133) on the button, but in the original drawings there is no structure depicted at all for the slot or groove (137) of the second locking region on the base. What area or region is specifically considered the second locking region is not clear, since 136 points to the side of the base in Figure 1, and an end of 133 in Figure 2. The Applicant added a labeled rectangular box in Figure 1 to represent the slot or groove, but this does not clarify the functionality and is considered new matter. The orientation, size, depth etc of the groove is not disclosed in the specification. The portion of the elongated protrusion received in the groove is not disclosed in the specification. And lastly, the position of the labeled rectangular box, while located at the location of the original leader line in Figure 1 as argued by the Applicant, does not match the location of 137 in Figure 2. In figure 1, the location of 137 appears directly next to the base of the right leg. In Figure 2, 136/137 is located towards the center of the base. It is not clear how the elongated protrusion is received in the groove since the elongated protrusion is depicted as extending at an angle in Figure 1.
If the locking device is a crux of the invention, then the Examiner suggests filing a Continuation-In-Part so that the proper structure and function thereof could be added to the drawings.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21:
-It is claimed that the foldable legs “snap” into the collapsed configuration and resist a pulling force when in the collapsed configuration. This is unclear since there does not appear to be any structure that allows “snapping” or resists a pulling force. It is not clear if these are referring to the interaction/release of the locking elements. The specification in para [0033] discloses snapping into one or both of the expanded configuration and collapsed configuration and resisting a pulling force, but does not refer to any structure that creates snapping or resists pulling. The specification merely states that the legs are constructed from a material that is shape retentive or resilient and therefore capable of snapping. Therefore, without any specific structure disclosed to perform snapping or resisting pulling, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations as being capable as long as the material is shape retentive or resilient.
Regarding Claim 22:
-It is claimed that the protrusion is in the form of a tab. This is unclear since the protrusion depicted and described in the specification is an elongated protrusion. It is not clear if the elongated protrusion is being considered to be a tab.
Regarding Claim 23:
-It is claimed that the protrusion is insertable into the groove. However, this is unclear since neither the specification nor the figures explain this functionality such that one of skill in the art could make and use the invention. Figure 1 depicts the elongated protrusion as an angled structure. The original drawings do not depict any slot or groove. It is not clear how the elongated protrusion engages the slot. For example, it is not clear if the elongated protrusion extends at a fixed angle through the base or if it somehow pivots with respect to the button. It is not clear if the entire protrusion is received in the slot, or only a portion of it.
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.
(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, 5, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10,200,518 (Richter).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Richter teaches an expandable device for attachment to a portable electronic device, the expandable device comprising:
a base (11; Figure 11) having a top side and a bottom side, the bottom side adapted to engage a portion of the portable electronic device (Figure 2);
an expanding mechanism (43,44,45) operably coupled to the base (11), wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a plurality of foldable legs (43,44) attached to the base (Figure 11);
a button (12) having a top side and a bottom side, the bottom side of the button being operably coupled to the expanding mechanism (as depicted in Figure 11),
wherein the expanding mechanism is selectively movable between a collapsed configuration (as shown in Figure 1) and an expanded configuration (as shown in Figure 11);
a first locking region in the form of a protrusion disposed on a portion of the button (col 3, ln 36-42 teaching diametrically opposed latching elements on 12; col 5, ln 60-65 teaching using various locking methods, including mechanical locks); and
a second locking region in the form of a groove disposed on a portion of the base (col 3, ln 36-42 teaching the latching elements latching “into” counter elements on base 11),
wherein the protrusion and the groove are configured to form a frictional connection (via the latches latching into the counter elements) to resist biasing forces exerted by the plurality of foldable legs (via spring 45; col 5, ln 53-67).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Richter teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of foldable legs (43,44) are each pivotably coupled to the base (11) and the button (12; col 2, ln 51-52 teaching a linkage; Figure 11 teaching hinged leg ends and leg portions to allow collapsing and expansion of the legs).
Regarding Claim 23, as best understood, Richter teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein the protrusion (latching elements) is insertable into the groove (col 3, ln 36-42 teaching the latching elements latching “into” counter elements on base 11).
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.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of US 2018/0051851 to Hobbs et al. (hereinafter ‘Hobbs’).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood, Richter teaches the expandable device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs is formed of a resilient material that biases the expandable device to the expanded configuration. Richter teaches a separate spring (45) that biases the legs (43,44) to the expanded configuration. However, Hobbs, which is also drawn to an expandable device comprising a base (106), a button (104), and an expandable mechanism comprising a plurality of legs (102,102; Figures 1A-1C), further teaches that the plurality of foldable legs is formed of a resilient material that biases the expandable device to the expanded configuration (para [0011] teaching spring steel). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use legs made of resilient material as taught by Hobbs on the expandable device of Richter as an alternate functionally equivalent expanding mechanism that would require less parts and still allow the device to be collapsible and expandable.
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, as best understood, Richter and Hobbs combined teach the expandable device of claim 19, wherein the expandable device is configured such that the plurality of foldable legs snap into the collapsed configuration upon pressing on the button to urge the expandable device to the collapsed configuration (due to the resiliency as modified by Hobbs), wherein the expandable device is configured to resist a pulling force when in the collapsed configured (due to the locking elements, and also due to resiliency as modified by Hobbs).
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Richter teaches the expandable device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the protrusion is in the form of a tab. Richter does teach that the protrusion is a latching element. However, Hobbs, which is also drawn to an expandable device comprising a base (106), a button (104), and an expandable mechanism comprising a plurality of legs (102,102; Figures 1A-1C), further teaches a first locking region in the form of a protrusion (210; Figure 2) received within a groove (defined between 208; Figure 2; para [0014]). As seen in Figure 2, the protrusion is a tab. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the locking mechanism of Richter could comprise a protrusion in the form of a tab as taught by Hobbs, such that the protrusion is securely held within the groove and resists accidental disengagement.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that Figure 2 does in fact show the groove 137, ad that the operation of the groove is explained in a manner which is consistent with the conventional understanding of a groove. The Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive. First, all claimed subject matter must be shown. A conventional understanding of a groove does not negate the requirement of depicting the structure in the figures. Secondly, Figure 2 does not show any groove. There is a reference numeral 137 that is pointing to the end of the protrusion, but no groove is visible. Further, in Figure 1 the protrusion is depicted at an angle. It is not clear if the protrusion retains that angle and passes into a groove at that fixed angle, or if there is a pivoting structure that allows it to also fold. It is also not clear if the entire protrusion is received within the groove, or only the end portion where 133 is pointing to. Therefore, the Examiner suggests only functionally claiming the locking functionality, since the locking does not have enough support to positively claim the interaction of the elements. Alternatively, a Continuation-In-Part may be filed and additional figures added to the drawings to provide the support needed.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art has been fully considered but is moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 INGRID WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Tuesday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights