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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 is 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 claim 3, the phrase “essentially along a central axis” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 depends from the above claim(s) and is rejected for the above reason as it does not cure the deficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,267,418 to Chuang in view of US Patent 3,144,909 to Hart.
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses a holding device for attaching an add-on component (phone – Col. 2, lines 64-66) to a handlebar-controlled vehicle (Fig. 3), comprising: a fastening device (44) to fasten the holding device to the vehicle; and a connecting device to connect the add-on component to the fastening device, the connecting device comprising a first adapter unit (Fig. 4 – recessed portion containing 224-226) and a second adapter unit (411), the first adapter unit including a retaining device (Fig. 4 – recessed portion containing 224-226) for mounting the second adapter unit. Chuang fails to disclose a groove element for positively locking the second adapter unit to the first adapter unit. However, Hart discloses a connection that includes a groove element (17) for axially locking one element (13) to another element (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a grooved locking element in Chuang because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, the configuration would allow for quickly securing and releasing the second adapter unit to the first adapter unit. In the combination, the shaft (10 – Hart) would extend upward from 211 (Chuang) and would secure within a receptacle in 411 (Chuang). The shaft would connect to 211 (Chuang) using a conventional fastener (44 – Chuang).
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the retaining device is axially symmetrical to a first plane (a plane running axially through the shaft (10 – Hart) of symmetry and a second plane of symmetry (a second plane running axially through the shaft, but perpendicular to the first shaft).
Regarding claim 3, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the groove element extends at least partially circumferentially around a shaped element of the retaining device that is formed essentially along a central axis (the groove element (17 - Hart) extends around the shaped head of shaft (10 – Hart)).
Regarding claims 5-7, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose the claimed adapter unit and fastening device sizes. However, making the size within the claimed range would have been obvious because it only involves 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. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the second adapter unit has a receptacle (receptacle in 411 (Chuang) for receiving the shaft (10 – Hart)) for positive-locking mounting on the retaining device.
Regarding claim 9, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the second adapter unit comprises an elastically deformable clasp unit (28 – Hart) for engaging in the groove element.
Regarding claim 10, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein first and second arms of the clasp unit extend at least partially over the receptacle (Hart Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the clasp unit is displaceably mounted on the second adapter unit (Hart Figs. 3-4), and wherein an arm of the clasp unit comprises a spreading section (31 – Hart) for unlocking the second adapter unit from the first adapter unit when the clasp unit is displaced.
Regarding claim 12, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the add-on component is received on the second adapter unit (Chuang Fig. 4 – phone is received on 40/411).
Regarding claim 14, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the add-on component can be locked relative to the first adapter unit in two different positions, wherein the two different positions form a 90° angle with one another (the protrusions (4111 – Chuang) and recesses (2241 – Chuang) allow for the claimed positioning.
Regarding claim 15, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the connecting device comprises a centering unit (4111/2241 – Chung) for centering the second adapter unit on the first adapter unit.
Regarding claim 17, the combination from claim 1 discloses a handlebar-controlled vehicle, comprising: the holding device of claim 1, wherein the holding device is at least partially mounted on a handlebar stem, a handlebar device, or a frame device of the vehicle (Chuang Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Hart, further view of US Patent 11,548,451 to Jankura.
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose a square cross section. However, Jankura discloses that it is known to use a square cross section in a connection element (124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the shaped element with a square cross section because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent connection element shape for another to obtain predictable results. Further, the modification only involves choosing from a finite number of predictable cross sections to use in a connection bracket.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Hart, further view of Jankura and US Published Application 2019/0198212 to Levy.
Regarding claim 13, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose a magnet. However, Jankura discloses using a phone case to connect a phone to a mount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a case to make the connection to the shaft (10 – Hart) because it allows for connecting to the mount without having to modify the shape of the phone itself. Further, Levy discloses that it is known to include a magnet unit (120b) on a phone case (104) for mounting the phone to an inductive charging adapter (para. 0047-0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included magnets in the case in the combination to facilitate wirelessly charging the phone, as taught by Levy (para. 0047-0048). To the extent it is in question, a shaft similar to the Chuang/Hart combination can be used to align the phone and case with the inductive charger, which would only involve a simple substitution of one known, equivalent alignment protrusion shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Hart, further view of US Patent 6,484,836 to Tsuji.
Regarding claim 16, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose an elastic spring unit. However, Tsuji discloses that it is known in this art to include an elastic layer (37) between mating parts to provide anti-rattle mounting of an electronic device (Col. 3, lines 37-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included an elastic spring unit around the end of the rounded portion of the shaft (10 – Hart) to provide an anti-rattle mounting for the mating parts, as taught by Tsuji (Col. 3, lines 37-39). In the combination, the elastic unit provides a mounting without play as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734