DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the poor quality of the drawings results in a lack of understanding of the claimed subject matter. 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.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1, recites “a mobile phone” in line 1, and later recites in line 3, “a mobile phone”, and “a mobile phone.” It is unclear whether the three recited mobile phones are intended to be the same mobile phone or different mobile phones, and which of the recited mobile phones is being reference for the later limitation. Because the claim does not establish a consistent antecedent basis, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of claimed limitation. Claim 1, lines 2-3, discloses “onto back of a mobile device”, and line 3 “onto back of a mobile phone” is unclear whether the two recited onto back of mobile devices are intended to be the same mobile phone or different mobile phones. Furthermore, the preamble of the claim after the transitional phrase (“comprising”) does not provide a colon to distinctly separate the preamble from the body of the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mobile device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mobile device" in line 2. Claim 7, line 2 recites "the mobile device.", and claim 8, line 1 recites "the mobile device”, and “the back of the phone.” It is not clear which mobile devices referring to, as multiple mobile devices are recited in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the same reason as claim 1, from which they depend.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by U.S Pub. No. 2021/0164607 A1 to Murphy.
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses an all-in-one piece handle for a mobile phone comprising (Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.4A and paragraph [0066]; hinge support is attached the backside of portable electronic device) and a flat end and a grip attached to the flat end (Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.4A and paragraph [0069]; Proximal end of elongated base 422 is attached to mounting plate 410 at the first end portion of the mounting plate and is also coplanar with the backside of the portable electronic device) and protruding from the flat A, end (Fig. paragraphs [0056] and [0072]; FIG. 7A showing a tenon protruding above the surface of the mounting plate), wherein the flat end is adapted to be glued onto back of a mobile phone (Fig.1, paragraphs [0045] and [0064]; hinged support apparatus can be attached to at the back of the electronic display device with a strong adhesive).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the flat end is quadrilateral and the grip is parallel or perpendicular to the long side of the flat end (Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.4A and paragraph [0048]; The flat part of the elongated base between the proximal end of the base and the closest living hinge to the proximal end of the base, if there is more than one living hinge, can be attached to the first end of the mounting plate).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle is retractable and further comprises hinges between the flat end and the grip; wherein when the hinges are in a closed position, they lock the handle in place with the flat end and the grip flush against each other; and wherein when the hinges are in an open position they allow the grip to be open and not retracted against the flat end (paragraphs [0048] and [0064]; proximal end of the elongated base can include a magnet embedded within or inserted into a mortise of the elongated base. The magnet can hold the distal, flat, proximal, part of the elongated base flush to the back of the portable electronic display by being attracted to the strike plate embedded in the mounting plate. Similar to the proximal end of the elongated base, which can have a recess that permanently houses the mounting plate, the distal end of the elongated base can have a recess within it to accommodate the mounting plate when the easel form of the hinged support is collapsed and substantially coplanar).
Regarding claim 5, Murphy discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle is made of plastic (paragraphs [0007] and [0047]; elongated base can be made of high-density rubber).
Regarding claim 6, Murphy discloses a mobile phone device comprising a mobile phone and a handle of claim 1, wherein the handle is glued onto the back of the mobile phone (Fig.1, paragraphs [0045] and [0064]; hinged support apparatus can be attached to at the back of the electronic display device with a strong adhesive).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy discloses a mobile phone device comprising a mobile phone and a handle of claim 1, further comprising a case that fits onto the back of the mobile phone, wherein the handle is glued onto the back of the case (Fig.1, paragraphs [0045] and [0064]; hinged support apparatus can be attached to at the back of the electronic display device with a strong adhesive).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy discloses he mobile phone device of claim 7, wherein the case fits on the back of the phone snugly (paragraph [0064]; mounting plate 110 can be attached to the back side or back case of the portable electronic display device).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy discloses the handle of claim 1, wherein the flat end is quadrilateral and the grip is parallel or perpendicular to the long side of the flat end (Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.4A and paragraph [0048]; The flat part of the elongated base between the proximal end of the base and the closest living hinge to the proximal end of the base, if there is more than one living hinge, can be attached to the first end of the mounting plate).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pub. No. 2021/0164607 A1 to Murphy in view of design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Murphy does not disclose the handle of claim 1, wherein the grip is 1/2” to 1/4” thick.
However, the claimed thickness1/2” to 1/4” is consider an obvious matter of design choice because the specification does not show that this range provides any unexpected result or functional improvement).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Murphy’s teaching with a feature of wherein the grip is 1/2” to 1/4” thick as an obvious matter of design choice because different thickness preforms the same function of enclosing and supporting component and archive the same result, without producing g any unexpected technical effect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKELAW A TESHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-5302. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6pm.
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, FAN TSANG can be reached at (571) 272-7547. 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.
AKELAW TESHALE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/AKELAW TESHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694