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 #18/672497, Interlocking Magnetic Device Mount With Foldable Ring Stand, filed 5/23/24. Claims 16-26 and 28-32 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant's reply dated 8/7/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no antecedent basis for “a first magnet” or “a second magnet” (Claim 26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 claims a second magnet configured to couple the mount assembly to the handheld electronic device and the outer ring comprising the second magnet. This is new matter since not disclosed in the original specification. The Examiner has reviewed the specification for support of this claim language. Para [0075] generally states that a magnet can facilitate coupling to the case. However, this does not specifically teach that there is an additional second magnet, or that the outer ring comprises the second magnet. Para [0070] teaches that instead of using an adhesive backing that the magnet of the mount assembly 100 (which is magnet 120) can magnetically couple the mount to the case. Therefore, this does not teach a second magnet or the outer ring comprising a second magnet. Lastly, para [0077] generally states that the outer ring can have “magnetic properties”. However, the Examiner notes that “magnetic properties” is very broad since magnetic properties merely refers to the behavior of materials when exposed to a magnetic field. Though strength and type vary depending on a material’s atomic structure, all matter exhibits some magnetic response. Therefore, this statement alone does not teach a second magnet or the outer ring comprising a second magnet. Para [0077] further states that the outer ring can be MagSafe or configured to be compatible with MagSafe and help facilitate wireless charging. While being MagSafe does define the outer ring having magnetic functionality, a specific second magnet was not defined, nor was it disclosed that the outer ring would magnetically couple to the case or electronic device. The MagSafe functionality would cooperate with a power source for charging.
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; para [0048]). 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, Grandadam and Mody.
Regarding Claim 26, as best understood, Weng teaches a mount assembly configured to couple to a handheld electronic device, the mount assembly comprising:
a mount (central structure that the pivotable ring is connected to; see above);
wherein the mount comprises a first surface (forward facing);
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);
an outer ring (as depicted above) defining a second surface (rear surface) configured to face the handheld electronic device;
a channel (as depicted above between the mount and the outer ring) bounded by the outer ring and configured to receive the ring in the stowed position (Figure 1).
Weng does not specifically teach a first magnet carried by the mount, the first magnet configured to secure the mount assembly and the handheld electronic device to a magnetic surface; or a second magnet configured to couple the mount assembly to the handheld electronic device, the outer ring comprising the second magnet.
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 first magnet (514; Figures 3 and 13) carried by a mount and configured to secure the mount assembly to a magnetic surface (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.
Additionally, 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 second magnet configured to couple the mount assembly to 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 as taught by Mody on the outer ring of Weng instead of the depicted attachment of Figure 4, since this would allow for easy removal of the mount assembly when not in use.
Regarding Claim 28, as best understood, Weng, Grandadam, and Mody combined teach the mount assembly of Claim 26, and Weng further teaches wherein the outer ring at least partially defines an outer perimeter of the channel (as depicted above).
Regarding Claim 32, as best understood, Weng, Grandadam, 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, Grandadam and Mody and further in view of Yim.
Regarding Claim 29, as best understood, Weng, Grandadam, 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 first magnet therein and the cover disposed over the first 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 Grandadam, 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, Grandadam, 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; para [0048]). 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, Grandadam, 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, Grandadam, and Mody and further in view of US D768,635 (Due).
Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Weng, Grandadam, 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Grandadam is not analogous art: The Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive. As stated in the office action, Grandadam is also drawn to a mount assembly for supporting an object, and the mount assembly teaches a ring positionable between a deployed position and a stowed position. One of skill in the art would reasonably look to Grandadam since both Grandadam and Weng teach mount assemblies with pivoting ring stands for positioning an object.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the thickness of Weng would be too thick to facilitate wireless charging if the outer ring of Weng was modified by Backus: The Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive. First, whether or not the thickness of Weng was too thick would be dependent upon the type/shape of the wireless power source. Secondly, if the outer ring of Weng was being modified to facilitate wireless charging as taught by Backus, it would be well within routine experimentation and design for one of skill in the art to know the optimum distance for charging with a specific type of charger, and to modify the dimensions of the mount assembly of Weng accordingly, while still retaining the same functionality of Weng. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the office action has not provided any reasoning for including both a mount with a magnet and an outer ring with magnetic properties: The Examiner has fully considered this argument but it is not persuasive. Grandadam taught using a first magnet to mount the mount assembly to a surface, and Backus taught using an outer ring with magnetic properties to facilitate wireless charging. Each of these limitations are well-known in the art and would reasonably be added either singularly or in combination to a mounting device. There is no reason as to why they both can’t be added. The Applicant argues that Weng’s magnet functions for both securing the mount assembly to the cell phone and securing the mount assembly and cell phone to a metallic surface. This is unclear since Weng does not specifically teach a magnet. Grandadam was used to modify Weng with a magnet.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that modifying Weng with the channel depth of Due would not allow a user to access the ring to move it between the stowed and deployed position: The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s argument but it is not persuasive. First, Weng depicts finger notches on the ring as depicted in Figure 8, with the known purpose of being able to grab the ring. If the depth of the channel was modified as taught by Due, in order to better protect the ring, one of skill in the art would reasonably also modify the finger notches to assure accessibility. Secondly, as shown in the figures of Weng, there is a gap between the outer perimeter of the ring and the inner perimeter of the outer ring, and therefore the ring would still be accessible.
Proposed Amendment
The Examiner has drafted the following proposed amendment that overcomes the prior art of record and would therefore e allowable:
16. A mount assembly configured to couple to a case for a handheld electronic device, the mount assembly comprising:
a mount configured to be coupled to the case for the handheld electronic device, the mount comprising a magnet configured to secure the mount assembly to magnetic surfaces;
a ring rotatably coupled to the mount, the ring comprising a first thickness, and a plurality of protrusions spaced around a circumference of the ring, the plurality of protrusions having a second thickness which is larger than the first thickness, wherein the ring is configured to rotate between a stowed position around the mount and a deployed position rotated away from the mount; and
an outer ring configured to be disposed around the ring in the stowed position, the outer ring configured to facilitate wireless charging of the handheld electronic device.
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