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 first action for application #18/672497, Interlocking Magnetic Device Mount With Foldable Ring Stand, filed 5/23/24. Claims 16-32 are pending.
The Examiner notes that the claims are drawn to the third embodiment of the application (Figures 12A-13) and therefore the examination of this application is for this embodiment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/29/24 and 9/15/25 were considered by the examiner, with the exception of the references striked out because the inventor name and the patent/publication number did not match.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both the phone case and the second embodiment of the device.
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. 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 is objected to because in para [0056], line 1, the term “an” should be ---can---.
The specification is objected to because numeral “200” is used when referring both to the phone case and to the second embodiment of the device.
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 26-32 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 26:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the mount”
Regarding Claim 27:
-An adhesive backing is claimed in Claim 27. However, it is unclear if this is in addition to the magnet already claimed in Claim 26.
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 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 16, 18, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US D1,003,888 (Weng), in view of US 2021/0215327 (Grandadam), and further in view of US 2022/0345560 (Backus).
Regarding Claim 16, Weng teaches a mount assembly configured to couple to a case for a handheld electronic device, the mount assembly comprising:
a mount (central structure that the pivotable ring is connected to; see below) configured to be coupled to the case for the handheld electronic device;
a ring (pivotable ring portion as depicted below) rotatably coupled to the mount, wherein the ring is configured to rotate between a stowed position (Figure 1) around the mount and a deployed position (Figure 8) rotated away from the mount; and
an outer ring (outermost ring as depicted below) configured to be disposed around the ring in the stowed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weng does not specifically teach the mount comprising a magnet configured to secure the mount assembly to magnetic surfaces. However, Grandadam, which is also drawn to a mount assembly for supporting an object, the mount assembly having a ring (710; Figure 13) positionable between a deployed position (Figure 13) and a stowed position (Figure 3), further teaches comprising a magnet (514; Figures 3 and 13) configured to secure the mount assembly to magnetic surfaces (para [0021]). 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 include a magnet as taught by Grandadam on the mount of Weng in order to allow various methods of positioning the electronic device, including with the ring as a stand and the magnet as a connector to magnetic surfaces, thereby making the mount assembly more versatile.
Weng does not specifically teach the outer ring configured to facilitate wireless charging of the handheld electronic device. However, Backus, which is also drawn to a mount assembly coupled to a handheld electronic device teaching an outer ring (145/105; Figure 9) and a central pivotal grip (110) which is both for gripping with a user’s fingers (Figure 4) but also to be used as a stand (Figure 7), further teaches that the outer ring is configured to facilitate wireless charging of the handheld electronic device (para [0040], [0047] teaching ferromagnetic ring 145 and magnets 135 corresponding to MagSafe magnetic standard and para [0043] teaching wireless charging). 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 make the outer ring of Weng configured to facilitate wireless charging of the handheld device, since this allows the mount assembly to remain attached to the electronic device when charging is needed.
Regarding Claim 21, Weng teaches a mount assembly configured to couple to a case for a handheld electronic device, the mount assembly comprising:
a mount (central structure that the pivotable ring is connected to; see above) configured to be coupled to the case for the handheld electronic device;
a ring (pivotable ring portion as depicted above) rotatably coupled to the mount, wherein the ring is configured to rotate between a stowed position (Figure 1) around the mount and a deployed position (Figure 8) rotated away from the mount; and
an outer ring (outermost ring as depicted above) configured to be disposed around the ring in the stowed position.
Weng does not specifically teach the mount comprising a magnet configured to secure the mount assembly to magnetic surfaces. However, Grandadam, which is also drawn to a mount assembly for supporting an object, the mount assembly having a ring (710; Figure 13) positionable between a deployed position (Figure 13) and a stowed position (Figure 3), further teaches comprising a magnet (514; Figures 3 and 13) configured to secure the mount assembly to magnetic surfaces (para [0021]). 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 include a magnet as taught by Grandadam on the mount of Weng in order to allow various methods of positioning the electronic device, including with the ring as a stand and the magnet as a connector to magnetic surfaces, thereby making the mount assembly more versatile.
Weng does not specifically teach the outer ring configured to have magnetic properties. However, Backus, which is also drawn to a mount assembly coupled to a handheld electronic device teaching an outer ring (145/105; Figure 9) and a central pivotal grip (110) which is both for gripping with a user’s fingers (Figure 4) but also to be used as a stand (Figure 7), further teaches that the outer ring is configured to have magnetic properties (para [0040], [0047] teaching ferromagnetic ring 145 and magnets 135 corresponding to MagSafe magnetic standard and para [0043] teaching wireless charging). 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 make the outer ring of Weng configured to have magnetic properties, since this allows the mount assembly to remain attached to the electronic device when charging is needed.
Regarding Claims 18 and 23, Weng, Grandadam, and Backus combined teach the mount assembly of Claims 16 and 21, and Weng teaches further comprising a channel (as depicted above) configured to receive the ring in the stowed position, the channel disposed between the outer ring and the mount.
Claims 17, 19, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, Grandadam, and Backus, and further in view of US 2020/0235770 to Yim et al. (hereinafter ‘Yim’).
Regarding Claims 17 and 22, Weng, Grandadam, and Backus combined teach the mount assembly of Claims 16 and 21, but do not specifically teach further comprising adhesive backing, wherein the mount and the outer ring are disposed on the adhesive backing, and the adhesive backing is configured to facilitate adhesion to the case. However, Yim, which is also drawn to a mount assembly (Figure 2) having a mount (20), pivotable ring (40) and outer ring (60), further teaches an adhesive backing (10) wherein the mount and the outer ring are disposed on the adhesive backing (Figure 1), and the adhesive backing (10) is configured to facilitate adhesion to the case (para [0053]). 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 an adhesive backing on the mount assembly of Weng, as taught by Yim, such that the mount assembly could be easily attached to the mobile device without requiring other connecting structure.
Regarding Claims 19 and 24, Weng, Grandadam, and Backus combined teach the mount assembly of Claims 16 and 21, and Weng further teaches wherein the mount comprises a mounting base (circular protrusion as depicted above) and a cover (as depicted above). Grandaham teaches the mounting base (618; Figure 3) housing the magnet (514) therein, but does not teach the cover disposed over the magnet.
However, Yim, which is also drawn to a mount assembly (Figure 26) having a mount (100), pivotable ring (200) and outer ring (300), further teaches that the mount (100) comprises a mounting base (110; Figure 29a) and a cover (120) and teaches housing a magnet (103) with the cover (120) disposed over the magnet (103; para [0109]). 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 a cover as depicted by Weng could cover the magnet taught by Grandadam, in the manner as taught by Yim, since this would protect the magnet from direct contact and also allow the exterior to be aesthetically pleasing to the user.
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, Grandadam, Backus and Yim, and further in view of US 2018/0220782 to Mody et al. (hereinafter ‘Mody’).
Regarding Claims 20 and 25, Weng, Grandadam, Backus and Yim combined teach the mount assembly of Claims 19 and 24, but do not specifically teach wherein the mounting base comprises a tab and the cover comprises a corresponding notch, the tab configured to be disposed in the notch to orient the mounting base and the cover relative to each other. However, Mody, which is also drawn to a mount assembly having a mount (40) comprising a mounting base (142) and cover (150) further teaches that the connection between the mounting base and cover are a tab (156) and notch (148). While the cover comprises the tab and the mounting base comprises the notch, the Examiner notes it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
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 a tab and notch connecting structure as taught by Mody for the connection between the mounting base and cap of Weng, Grandadam, Backus, and Yim, as one well-known type of connection which prevents rotation between the elements. Weng actually also depicts spaced connecting points around the perimeter of the cover so these locations would be an obvious point of connection when modified by Mody.
Claims 26-28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng and Mody.
Regarding Claim 26, as best understood, Weng teaches a mount assembly configured to couple to a case for a handheld electronic device, the mount assembly comprising:
a ring (as depicted above) rotatably coupled to the mount (central portion as depicted above), wherein the ring is configured to rotate between a stowed position (Figure 1) and a deployed position (Figure 8); and
a channel (as depicted above between the mount and the outer ring) configured to receive the ring in the stowed position (Figure 1).
Weng does not specifically teach a magnet configured to couple the mount assembly to the case for the handheld electronic device. However, Mody, which is also drawn to a mount assembly for mounting to a case of a handheld electronic device (Figures 1 and 2), further teaches a magnet configured to couple the mount assembly to the case for the handheld electronic device (para [0039] teaching that various attachment methods could be used including an adhesive or a magnet). 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 a magnet for attaching the mount assembly of Weng, as taught by Mody, since this would allow for easy removal of the mount assembly when not in use.
Regarding Claim 27, as best understood, Weng and Mody combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 26, and Weng teaches wherein the mount (central portion) and a rear surface of the channel (around the central portion) are disposed on a backing (as depicted above since the channel has a rear surface and the rear of the assembly is the portion that attaches to the phone). Mody teaches further comprising adhesive backing (para [0039] teaching that various attachment methods could be used including an adhesive or a magnet), and the adhesive backing is configured to facilitate adhesion to the case. 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 an adhesive backing as taught by Mody so that the backing of Weng could be attached to the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 28, as best understood, Weng and Mody combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 26, and Weng further teaches comprising an outer ring (as depicted above) configured to at least partially define an outer perimeter of the channel.
Regarding Claim 32, as best understood, Weng and Mody combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 26, and Weng further teaches wherein the channel has a circular shape (as depicted above).
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng and Mody and further in view of Yim.
Regarding Claim 29, as best understood, Weng and Mody combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 26, and Weng further teaches wherein the mount comprises a mounting base (circular protrusion as depicted above) and a cover (as depicted above). Weng does not specifically teach the mounting base housing the magnet therein and the cover disposed over the magnet. However, Yim, which is also drawn to a mount assembly (Figure 26) having a mount (100), pivotable ring (200) and outer ring (300), further teaches that the mount (100) comprises a mounting base (110; Figure 29a) and a cover (120) and teaches housing a magnet (103) with the cover (120) disposed over the magnet (103; para [0109]). 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 housing and cover as depicted by Weng could house and cover the magnet of Weng and Mody, as taught by Yim, since this would protect the magnet from direct contact and also allow the exterior to be aesthetically pleasing to the user.
Regarding Claim 30, as best understood, Weng, Mody, and Yim combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 29, but Yim does not specifically teach wherein the mounting base comprises a tab and the cover comprises a corresponding notch, the tab configured to be disposed in the notch to orient the mounting base and the cover relative to each other. However, Mody, teaches a mount (40) comprising a mounting base (142) and cap (150), and further teaches that the connection between the mounting base and cover are a tab (156) and notch (148). While the cover comprises the tab and the mounting base comprises the notch, the Examiner notes it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
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 a tab and notch connecting structure as taught by Mody for the connection between the mounting base and cover of Weng, Mody, and Yim, as one well-known type of connection which prevents rotation between the elements. Weng actually also depicts spaced connecting points around the perimeter of the cover so these locations would be an obvious point of connection when modified by Mody.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng and Mody and further in view of US D768,635 (Due).
Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Weng and Mody combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 26, but do not specifically teach wherein the channel has a depth that is configured to receive the ring such that the ring is entirely disposed within the channel in the stowed position. However, Due, which is also drawn to a mount assembly having an outer ring and an inner ring that is pivotable between an expanded configuration (Figure 1) and a stowed configuration (Figures 15 and 16), further teaches wherein the outer ring entirely surrounds the ring and receives it fully therein. 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 make the channel of Weng between the outer ring and mount deeper, such that the ring could be entirely disposed within the channel in the stowed position, as taught by Due, since this would protect the ring from accidentally being deployed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 2017/0055660 (Tien), and US 2021/0012623 (Gov-Ari) teach a mount assembly having a mount, a pivotable ring, and an outer ring.
The following references were not filed or published prior to the Applicant’s priority date, but are relevant as they teach the structure being claimed.
US D963,635 (Peng), US D1,019,621 (Feng), US D981,999 (Zhang), US D966,255 (Zhong), US D1,006,004 (Chen), USD1,038,105 (Koo et al.), US D1,108,409 (Xing), US 2023/0362287 (Fowler), US 2025/0040688 (Wang et al.), US 2020/0203975 (Sobh), US D1,017,591 (Liu) teach a mount assembly having a mount, a pivotable ring, and an outer ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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