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 .
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)(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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #8,615,849 to Rothbaum (Rothbaum), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2006/0054647 to Kathrein (Kathrein).
With Respect to Claim 1
Rothbaum (for clarity, the rejection of claim 1 will reference particular embodiments, but the rejection is considered to encompass all other embodiments with similar features, and dependent claims may reference different embodiments to meet the limitations of particular dependent claims) discloses a storage clip, comprising: a hanging body (device case, e.g. 3102 in FIG. 31A or 31E) configured to be connected to a hanging carrier (capable of this use with an appropriate hanging carrier, e.g. a hanging holster that the case fits into or via hanging using the headphones); a clip body (e.g. 101 in FIG. 3H or 3104 in FIG. 31A or 31E), a first end of the clip body being connected to the hanging body, and a second end of the clip body being movable toward or away from the first end of the clip body (see, e.g. FIGS. 2A-B, 30I and 31A/E, and description); a first engagement body (e.g. 3110, FIG. 31A) arranged on the first end of the clip body; and a second engagement body (e.g. 3112, FIG. 31A arranged on the second end of the clip body, the second engagement body and the first engagement body being removably connected together (see, e.g. FIG. 30I showing the connection together with respect to a similar embodiment, and disclosure also indicating this use); wherein when the second engagement body and the first engagement body are connected to each other, the clip body forms a first closed structure which is configured to hold a first hung object so as to place the first hung object on the hanging carrier (capable of this use, which is also the intended use, see, e.g. 310I showing it used to hold headphone wire and description of this use).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains the position that the structure of Rothbaum meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “configured to be connected to a hanging carrier”,
Kathrein discloses forming an electronic device/phone case (20) with a fastener (12/13) for connection to a hanging carrier (e.g. 14 in combination with 50/44/26/etc. is a hanging carrier as it allows for hanging to carry itself and any attached object such as the case). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Kathrein, to add a fastener as taught by Kathrein (and hanging carrier as well if desired, although the claim language does not require such) to the case of Rothbaum, in order to allow for hands free carrying of the case and device within and/or for the other benefits disclosed by Kathrein for its structure.
With Respect to Claim 2
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the hanging body has an accommodating groove (3114, FIG. 31A) in which the clip body is located, and the clip body is capable of being received in the accommodating groove when the clip body is expanded such that a back surface thereof is attached to the hanging body (see, e.g. FIG. 31B and description).
With Respect to Claim 3
The storage clip according to claim 2, wherein one of the hanging body and the second end of the clip body is provided with a third engagement body (3118 or 3122, FIG. 31E), the other thereof is provided with a fourth engagement body (the other of 3118 or 3122), and when the clip body is expanded such that the back surface thereof is attached to the hanging body, the third engagement body and the fourth engagement body are removably connected together, so as to connect the second end of the clip body and the hanging body together (not shown, but that is the disclosed used of the fasteners).
With Respect to Claim 4
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein one of the hanging body and the second end of the clip body is provided with a third engagement body (the other of 3118 or 3122), the other thereof is provided with a fourth engagement body (e.g. 3118, , and when the clip body is expanded such that the back surface thereof is attached to the hanging body, the third engagement body and the fourth engagement body are removably connected together, so as to connect the second end of the clip body and the hanging body together (not shown, but that is the disclosed used of the fasteners).
With Respect to Claim 5
The storage clip according to claim 4, wherein the third engagement body (3218, FIG. 32E) comprises a positioning protrusion (noting protruding male portion of snap fastener), and the fourth engagement body (3222, FIG. 32E) comprises a first connecting hole (noting central hole/female portion of snap fastener) into which the positioning protrusion is inserted.
With Respect to Claim 10
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the first engagement body comprises a third magnet, and the second engagement body comprises a fourth magnet which magnetically cooperates with the third magnet.
With Respect to Claim 11
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the first engagement body and the second engagement body are connected together by means of any one of snap-fitting, hook-and-loop connection, and adhesive bonding (Col. 12 lines 36-48 disclose using snaps, hook and loop, or adhesives instead of the magnets as the first and second engagement body).
With Respect to Claim 12
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the clip body is a structure made of any one of a flexible material, an elastic material, a chain, and a bead string (it is a flexible material).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #8,615,849 to Rothbaum (Rothbaum), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2006/0054647 to Kathrein (Kathrein).
With Respect to Claim 6
The storage clip according to claim 4, and forming the third and fourth engagement bodies as additional and separate connectors from the first and second engagement body (noting, e.g. Fig. 32E); but does not disclose wherein the third engagement body comprises a first magnet, and the fourth engagement body comprises a second magnet which magnetically cooperates with the first magnet (noting that the embodiment using magnets as the third/fourth engagement body uses only a single magnet to attach to the magnet that is the first/second engagement body rather than two magnets one of which is the first/second engagement body and the other functions as the third/fourth engagement body).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Rothbaum, to add an additional magnet on the strap as the third/fourth engagement body to mate with the other of the third/fourth engagement body, in order to improve the magnetic connection by forming each magnet for its purpose (e.g. a single magnet requires a strong centrally located magnet to have a magnetic field in both directions, while separate magnets allows for smaller/weaker magnets located closer to the exterior), and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). There is no inventive step in merely providing two separate connectors to serve the two separate connective purposes of a single dual purpose connector.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #8,615,849 to Rothbaum (Rothbaum), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2006/0054647 to Kathrein (Kathrein) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,979,851 to Purdy (Purdy) and/or U.S. Patent #2017/0064854 to Hayes (Hayes).
With Respect to Claim 7
The storage clip according to claim 1, wherein the first engagement body comprises: a first connecting portion (peg per Col. 12 lines 36-48), a first end of the first connecting portion being connected to the first end of the clip body; and the second engagement body comprises a second connecting hole (hole that peg is inserted into per Col. 12 lines 36-48) cooperating with the first connecting portion, and the first limiting portion is capable of passing through the second connecting hole; but does not disclose a first limiting portion arranged on a second end of the first connecting portion, the outer diameter of the first limiting portion being greater than the outer diameter of the first connecting portion.
However, Purdy discloses forming a similar clip body (5, FIG. 3) having a first end attached to a hanging body (3, FIG. 3) for attachment to a hanging carrier, the second end of the clip body being movable toward or away from the first end of the clip body, and a first engagement body (11) on a first end of the clip body that is a peg and a second engagement body (23) one the second end of the clip body that is a hole, and a first limiting portion (noting enlarged head shown but unlabelled in FIG. 3) arranged on a second end of the first connecting portion, the outer diameter of the first limiting portion being greater than the outer diameter of the first connecting portion (FIG. 3, noting the openings are shown with a much smaller diameter than the head and with slits to aloe for passage of the head).
Hayes discloses forming a similar clip body with a first connecting portion (post 32a) and a first limiting portion (noting button head 31a, FIG. 2) arranged on a second end of the first connecting portion, the outer diameter of the first limiting portion being greater than the outer diameter of the first connecting portion (see, e.g. [0030] and FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Purdy or Hayes, to use a button/post with an enlarged head as the pin and an opening smaller than the outer diameter of the head of the button/post, in order to better secure the two parts together to prevent inadvertent separation of the loop and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate peg and hole attachment structure to use. Alternately, to the degree that Purdy does not indicate that its drawings are to scale and does not explicitly state that the hole is smaller than the post head, Purdy provides motivation to form a similar loop for holding a wire/object and Hayes provides motivation for the relative sizing of the peg/head of the pin and the hole.
With Respect to Claim 8
The storage clip according to claim 7, wherein the second connecting hole has an expanded diameter state in which the diameter is increased to enable the first limiting portion to pass, and a reduced diameter state in which the diameter is decreased to be less than the outer diameter of the first limiting portion (hayes [0030-0031], or inherent in Purdy as such expansion is necessary to allow the enlarged head to pass through the opening).
With Respect to Claim 9
The storage clip according to claim 7, but does not disclose wherein at least two second connecting holes are provided, which are arranged at intervals in a length direction of the clip body, and each second connecting hole is capable of cooperating with the first connecting portion.
However, Hayes or Purdy disclose the use of additional connecting holes arranged at intervals in the length direction and capable of cooperating with the first connecting portion, in order to allow for adjustment of the size of the loop, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Purdy or Hayes to provide at least two second connecting holes to allow for adjustability of the size of the loop, to hold differently sized headphone cords and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 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: U.S. Patent #5,460,308 discloses a similar storage clip comprising a similar hanging body (lower portion of 10 in FIG. 1) and a clip body upper portion of 10 shown in FIG. 1 connected to the hanging body, but the hanging body lacks at least a buckle portion as claimed; U.S. Design Patent #D966,934 discloses a similar hanging body having a buckle portion, but lacks a clip body; however, there is insufficient motivation based on the ‘308 or ‘934 patents to modify the Rothbaum structure to include the structures recited in claim 13, noting the significant structural differences between them, and additionally there is insufficient motivation to modify ‘934 which is a design patent and does not disclose a particular use to add a clip body absent impermissible hindsight, and similarly there is insufficient motivation to add a buckle portion per the ‘934 design patent to the ‘308 patent, noting that as a design patent ‘934 does not disclose a particular utility of the buckle portion and the addition of such a buckle portion appears unnecessary and to not add additional utility as the hook and loop fastener of the ‘308 patent adjustably secures the parts together.
It is noted that the mere fact that all individual aspects were individually known in the art “is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness without some objective reason to combine the teachings of the references. Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). ‘‘‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006))”(MPEP 2143.01(IV)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734