DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 4-10 and 12 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. The “stop” is new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. (US 2015/0371320) in view of Winton et al. (US 2017/0349).
Regarding claim 1, Argue discloses a smartphone holster (Fig. 3) comprising: an adjustable support frame configured to cradle and support a smartphone from below, wherein said support frame comprises an expandable panel (16) and a pair of L-shaped brackets (60, 62) projecting from said panel and configured to engage a pair of corners of a smartphone, wherein said panel comprises two panel sections (78) connected by an adjustment mechanism (at 62) configured to permit relative movement of said two panel sections to increase and decrease the width of said panel and the distance between said brackets; and wherein said adjustment mechanism comprises a spring-loaded linkage (at 72) including a bar (66, or bottom of 64) coupled to and extending from a first one of said two panel sections into an interior of a second one of said two panel sections and a spring (72) positioned between a stop (74) on said bar and an interior surface of said second one of said two panel sections wherein said spring is configured to bias said two panel sections together ([0052]). Although Argue discloses a mounting clip (58), he does not disclose the mounting clip as claimed.
Winton, which is drawn to a smartphone holster, discloses a mounting clip (100) configured to removably attach to a rail of a shopping cart, wherein said mounting clip comprises a first wall portion (at 110) attached to a panel, a second wall portion (103) disposed facing and apart from said first wall portion, and a curved portion (at 104) connecting said first wall portion and said second wall portion and configured to fit around a rail of a shopping cart to suspend said support frame. See Figs. 1-3. Thus, it 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 to substitute the mounting clip of Argue for that of Winton’s in order to facilitate the attachment and detachment of the device to a shopping cart.
Regarding claim 7, as modified above, the said second wall portion is angled inwardly toward said first wall portion such that the distance between a first end section connected to said curved portion and said first wall portion and is greater than the distance between a distal second end section and said first wall portion. See Winton, Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 8, as modified above, said curved portion is resiliently flexible to permit said second wall portion to be temporarily displaced from said first wall portion during placement of said mounting clip on a rail of a shopping cart. See Winton, Abstract.
Regarding claim 9, as modified above, said second end section is curved outwardly away from said first wall portion. See Winton, Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 10, as modified above, said mounting clip comprises a support member (113) projecting from said first wall portion adjacent said second end section and configured to brace against a frame portion of a shopping cart to prop said support frame at an angle to permit better viewing of a screen of a smartphone. See Winton, Fig. 3.
Claims 4, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argue et al. and Winton et al. as applied above in further view of Iverson (US 2020/0186632).
Regarding claim 4, Argue does not disclose a screw as claimed. Iverson, which is drawn to a device holster, discloses an adjustment mechanism (214) that comprises a locking screw (1434) to releasably lock panel sections together at a desired width of said panel. See Fig. 14. Thus, it 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 to substitute the panel and brackets of Argue for that of Iverson’s with a locking screw in order to adjust and lock the device in different lengths.
Regarding claim 6, Argue does not disclose a retaining lip as claimed. Iverson, which is drawn to a smartphone holster, discloses brackets comprising a retaining lip extending parallel to a panel (1406) and configured to engage a front face of a smartphone. See Figs. 14-15. Thus, it 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 to use retaining lips, as disclosed by Iverson, on the brackets of Argue in order to better secure a device like a smartphone.
Regarding claim 12, Argue, as modified above, discloses a smartphone holster comprising: an adjustable support frame configured to cradle and support a smartphone from below, wherein said support frame comprises an expandable panel and a pair of L-shaped brackets projecting from said panel and configured to engage a pair of corners of a smartphone, wherein: said panel comprises two panel sections connected by an adjustment mechanism configured to permit relative movement of said two panel sections to increase and decrease the width of said panel and the distance between said brackets, wherein: said adjustment mechanism comprises a spring-loaded linkage including a bar coupled to and extending from a first one of said two panel sections into an interior of a second one of said two panel sections and a spring positioned between a stop on said bar and an interior surface of said second one of said two panel sections wherein said spring is configured to bias said two panel sections together, said adjustment mechanism comprises a locking screw to releasably lock said panel sections together at a desired width of said panel, each of said brackets comprises a bottom portion and a side portion projecting perpendicular to said panel, wherein said bottom portion supports a smartphone thereon and said side portion engages a side edge of a smartphone, each of said brackets comprises a retaining lip extending parallel to said panel and configured to engage a front face of a smartphone; and a mounting clip configured to removably attach to a rail of a shopping cart, wherein said mounting clip comprises a first wall portion attached to said panel, a second wall portion disposed facing and apart from said first wall portion, and a curved portion connecting said first wall portion and said second wall portion and configured to fit around a rail of a shopping cart to suspend said support frame, wherein: said second wall portion is angled inwardly toward said first wall portion such that the distance between a first end section connected to said curved portion and said first wall portion and is greater than the distance between a distal second end section and said first wall portion, said curved portion is resiliently flexible to permit said second wall portion to be temporarily displaced from said first wall portion during placement of said mounting clip on a rail of a shopping cart, said second end section is curved outwardly away from said first wall portion, said mounting clip comprises a support member projecting from said first wall portion adjacent said second end section and configured to brace against a frame portion of a shopping cart to prop said support frame at an angle to permit better viewing of a screen of a smartphone. See Above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the above prior art fails to disclose the latest amendments - the Office respectfully disagrees. See above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734