DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 4/22/2024 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inward facing lip”, “securing mechanism”, and “securing mechanism is at least one of a frictional interference fit, an adhesive, a tongue and groove mechanism, one or more detents, and a passive perimeter lip” must be shown and reference numbers provided therefor on the drawings and in the specification, 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.
Specification
The specification should be amended to comply with the amended drawings by reflecting any added reference numbers.
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, and 10-13, 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the parent claim 3 recites the limitation “the side wall perimeter”, which lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 10-13, the parent claim 10 recites the open-ended and unclear limitation “from side to side” without specifying the sides of which particular component the claim is referring to.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11, 119, 544 to Perez (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, and 23, Perez discloses (Figs. 1-6) a protective mobile device case (100), comprising: a sidewall perimeter member (126) shaped to at least partially (completely) circumscribe a perimeter of a mobile device (200); a substantially planar back plate member (102) associated with the sidewall perimeter member and having an inward side and an outward side (i.e., opposite planar surfaces); a substantially planar set of ventilation channels (118) oriented along the inward side and oriented substantially parallel to each other along the inward side from side to side and having vent outlets oriented adjacent the sidewall perimeter member (126) and which vent to surrounding environment when the mobile device is placed within the protective mobile device case (via openings (134), Fig. 6)); and a substantially planar cooling gel layer associated with the inward side and in contact with at least a portion of the set of ventilation channels and configured to contact at least a portion of a back side of the mobile device (col. 5, ll. 24-40; col. 6, ll. 1-11; claims 5, 6, 11, and 12).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 14-19, and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0363114 to Lin.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 23, Lin discloses a protective mobile device case (Fig. 3), comprising: a sidewall perimeter member (1014) shaped to at least partially (completely) circumscribe a perimeter of a mobile device (100); a substantially planar back plate member (101) associated with the sidewall perimeter member and having an inward side and an outward side (i.e., opposite planar surfaces); a substantially planar set of ventilation channels (1012) embedded in and oriented substantially parallel to each other along the inward side from side to side and having vent outlets oriented adjacent the sidewall perimeter member and which vent to surrounding environment when the mobile device (100) is placed within the protective mobile device case (par. [0095], Fig. 3); and a substantially planar cooling gel layer (30) associated with the inward side and in contact with at least a portion of the set of ventilation channels (1012) and configured to contact at least a portion of a back side of the mobile device (100), (par. [0095], Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Perez discloses that the sidewall perimeter member (126) is sufficiently flexible (col. 8, ll. 40-44) to allow insertion of the mobile device (200) within the sidewall perimeter member and includes an inward facing lip (Figs. 1, 6) which runs along at least a portion of the sidewall perimeter member and is adapted to retain the mobile device (200) within the sidewall perimeter (Figs. 1, 6).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses that the back plate member (101) is integrally formed with the sidewall perimeter member (1014) as a single molded piece (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Perez discloses that the back plate member (102) is engaged with the sidewall perimeter member (126) via a securing mechanism, which is at least one of a frictional interference fit, an adhesive, a tongue and groove mechanism, one or more detents, and a passive perimeter lip (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, Perez discloses that the ventilation channels (118) are distributed across substantially an entirety of the inward side (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses that the ventilation channels (1012) are distributed across substantially an entirety of the inward side (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses that the vent outlets (ends of (1012)) are oriented adjacent but separate from the sidewall perimeter member (1014) and are oriented outwardly facing along sides of the mobile device case (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Perez discloses that the vent outlets (134) are oriented within the sidewall perimeter member (126), (Figs. 1-4, 6).
Regarding claims 14-16, Perez discloses that the cooling gel layer extends across at least 50% (90%, 100%) of the inward side (col. 5, ll. 24-40; col. 6, ll. 1-11; claims 5, 6, 11, and 12).
Regarding claims 14-16, Lin discloses that the cooling gel layer extends across at least 50% (90%, 100%) of the inward side (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Perez discloses that the cooling gel layer is in contact with substantially all of the plurality of ventilation channels (118), (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses that the cooling gel layer (30) is in contact with substantially all of the plurality of ventilation channels (1012), (Fig. 3, par. [0093]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Lin discloses that the cooling gel layer (30) includes a hydrogel, wherein the hydrogel is at least one of a polyacrylamide hydrogel, a silicone hydrogel, a polymethacrylate hydrogel, and a polysodium acrylate hydrogel (pars. [0097], [0103]).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Perez or Lin, each taken alone.
Regarding claim 13, neither Perez nor Lin teaches that the set of ventilation channels are spaced apart 1 to 2 cm.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in cooling art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have spaced apart the ventilation channels of either Perez or Lin any optimal desired distance, including as claimed, in order to predictably achieve desired cooling efficiency, 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. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 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:
Regarding claims 20-22, the limitations of claim 20 (“the cooling gel layer comprises: a dust film facing the set of ventilation channels; a lattice substrate adjacent the dust film and adapted to provide structural support to the cooling gel layer; an adhesive layer adjacent the lattice substrate and opposite the dust film; a hydrogel layer adjacent the adhesive layer opposite the lattice substrate; and a heat dissipating silicone layer facing the mobile device”) in combination with all of the limitations of the parent claim 1, are believed to render the combined subject matter, and claims 21-22 dependent therefrom, allowable over the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination.
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teaching of various cases and holders for portable devices, some with cooling arrangements (e.g., see the US 2023/0363114, US 12513859, US 2020/0288833, US 9608686, US 9436239, US 2014/0000844, and US 8218321).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2835