ELECTRONIC DEVICE PROTECTIVE COVER

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/23/26 has been entered. Drawings 3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hand strap penetrating through the rotating plate”, as recited in claims 1 and 16, and the “hand strap module further comprising a u-shaped part having a first surface directly contacting the second protective shell”, as recited in claim 21, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. In Figure 1, it is hard to tell if the strap penetrates through the plate or contacts the shell. It almost looks as if the strap is formed as part of the plate in this figure (see below). PNG media_image1.png 134 164 media_image1.png Greyscale In Figure 2, it seems the strap is about to be clamped between the plate and the shell but the strap does not penetrate the plate itself, which would satisfy claim 21 but not claim 1 from which claim 21 depends. Figure 3 shows the hand strap formed as one piece with the plate in which case the strap would not satisfy either of claims 1 or 21. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the hand strap of Figure 3 can be loosened proximate the fixing ring 340 such that the loosened U-shaped part is capable of touching both the shell and the fixing ring (which is part of the rotating plate when they are formed as one piece). 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 § 103 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-4, 13, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Carnevali (US 10,595,622 B2). Regarding claim 1, Murchison discloses an electronic device protective cover, comprising: a first protective shell (101); a second protective shell (102); a pivot (107) connected between the first protective shell and the second protective shell. Murchison fails to disclose a rotatable hand strap module rotatably installed on the second protective shell, wherein the rotatable hand strap module comprises: a rotating plate rotatably installed on the second protective shell; and a hand strap penetrating through the rotating plate, and wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a fixed shaft penetrating through the rotating plate and the second protective shell to allow the rotatable hand strap module to rotatably install on the second protective shell, wherein due to penetration of the fixed shaft through the second protective shell, the fixed shaft is exposed to an electronic device when the electronic device is disposed within the electronic device protective cover (electronic device not currently being claimed in combination). Carnevali teaches that it was already known in the art to provide rotatable hand strap module (20/24/34) rotatably installed on a protective shell (18), wherein the rotatable hand strap module comprises: a rotating plate (24) rotatably installed on a protective shell; and a hand strap (20) penetrating through the rotating plate (see Figures), and wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a fixed shaft (“rotation pin 34”, see col. 5 line 38) penetrating through the rotating plate and the second protective shell (see Figures 10 and 11) to allow the rotatable hand strap module to rotatably install on the second protective shell, wherein due to penetration of the fixed shaft through the second protective shell, the fixed shaft is exposed to an electronic device (see Figures 10 and 20) when the electronic device is disposed within the electronic device protective cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have installed a rotatable hand strap module like that of Carnevali on the back of the Murchison electronic device cover, in any physically possible and suitable location, in this case on the second protective shell, the motivation being to make it easier for a user to hold and rotate the electronic device during use, as taught by Carnevali. Regarding claim 2, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, wherein Murchison discloses the first protective shell (101) comprises: a first protective corner (103); a second protective corner (103); and a connecting part (material that makes up 101 located between each of the corners 103) connected between the first protective corner and the second protective corner. Regarding claim 3, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 2, wherein Murchison discloses the second protective shell (102) comprises: a base plate (102); a third protective corner (103) disposed on the base plate; and a fourth protective corner (103) disposed on the base plate, wherein the first protective corner and the second protective corner are symmetrical to the third protective corner and the fourth protective corner (see Figure 1). Regarding claim 4, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, wherein the second protective shell is rotatable by a predetermined angle along the pivot (see Figures 5-7). Regarding claim 13, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, wherein the rotating plate of the rotatable hand strap module is connected to the hand strap, as taught by Carnevali, but so far fails to include the rotating plate and the hand strap are formed in one piece using double injection molding. Carnevali shows the hand strap (20) formed as a separate piece from the rotating plate (24) but discloses no criticality to such design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have formed the hand strap and rotating plate of Carnevali, now part of the modified Murchison cover, in one-piece since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Regarding the specific process of double injection molding, as set forth in MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the modified Murchison cover now includes a hand strap integrally formed in one piece with the rotating plate. This is the same product of the product-by-process claim and thus satisfies this claim limitation as currently presented. Regarding claim 16, Murchison discloses an electronic device protective cover to protect an electronic device (electronic device not currently being claimed in combination), comprising: a first protective shell (101); a second protective shell (102); a pivot (107) connected between the first protective shell and the second protective shell. Murchison fails to disclose a rotatable hand strap module rotatably installed on the second protective shell, wherein the rotatable hand strap module comprises: a rotating plate rotatably installed on the second protective shell; and a hand strap penetrating through the rotating plate, and wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a fixed shaft penetrating through the rotating plate and the second protective shell to allow the rotatable hand strap module to rotatably install on the second protective shell, wherein due to penetration of the fixed shaft through the second protective shell, the fixed shaft is exposed to an electronic device when the electronic device is disposed within the electronic device protective cover (electronic device not currently being claimed in combination). Carnevali teaches that it was already known in the art to provide rotatable hand strap module (20/24/34) rotatably installed on a protective shell (18), wherein the rotatable hand strap module comprises: a rotating plate (24) rotatably installed on a protective shell; and a hand strap (20) penetrating through the rotating plate (see Figures), and wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a fixed shaft (“rotation pin 34”, see col. 5 line 38) penetrating through the rotating plate and the second protective shell (see Figures 10 and 11) to allow the rotatable hand strap module to rotatably install on the second protective shell, wherein due to penetration of the fixed shaft through the second protective shell, the fixed shaft is exposed to an electronic device (see Figures 10 and 20) when the electronic device is disposed within the electronic device protective cover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have installed a rotatable hand strap module like that of Carnevali on the back of the Murchison electronic device cover, in any physically possible and suitable location, in this case on the second protective shell, the motivation being to make it easier for a user to hold and rotate the electronic device during use, as taught by Carnevali. Regarding claim 17, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 16, wherein Murchison discloses the first protective shell (101) comprises: a first protective corner (103); a second protective corner (103); and a connecting part (material that makes up 101 located between each of the corners 103) connected between the first protective corner and the second protective corner, and the first protective corner is fixed on a first corner of the electronic device (400 - see Figure 4; electronic device now being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is fixed on”) and the second protective corner is fixed on a second corner of the electronic device (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 18, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 17, wherein Murchison discloses the second protective shell (102) comprises: a base plate (102); a third protective corner (103) disposed on the base plate; and a fourth protective corner (103) disposed on the base plate, wherein the first protective corner and the second protective corner are symmetrical to the third protective corner and the fourth protective corner (see Figure 1), wherein the third protective corner is fixed on a third corner of the electronic device and the fourth protective corner is fixed on a fourth corner of the electronic device (see Figure 4), wherein the first protective corner and the second protective corner are symmetrical to the third protective corner and the fourth protective corner (see Figures). Regarding claim 21, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises a U-shaped part having a first surface directly contacting the second protective shell and a second surface directly contacting the rotating plate. As in Applicant’s Figure 3 as described in paragraph 2 above, the hand strap of Carnevali, which has been added to Murchison, has one end which can be loosened such that it is capable of touching the shell as well as the plate. 7. Claims 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Carnevali (US 10,595,622 B2) as applied above, further in view of Burns (US 9,204,710 B1). Regarding claim 7, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 6, but so far fails to include wherein the fixed shaft comprises: an internal thread sleeve nut penetrating through the rotating plate and the second protective shell; and an external thread bolt fixed to the internal thread sleeve nut so that the rotatable hand strap module is rotatably installed on the second protective shell. The fixed shaft (34) as taught by Carnevali is not described in any detail and does not appear to be shown to include these features. Burns teaches that it was already known for a fixed shaft (46/48) to comprise an internal thread sleeve nut (46) and an external thread bolt (48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the fixed shaft of the modified Murchison cover with a fixed shaft including an internal thread sleeve nut and external thread bolt as claimed, where such fixed shaft design was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Burns. The proposed modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known fixed shaft design for another to achieve predictable results. Regarding claim 8, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, wherein the Carnevali strap, which has been added to Murchison comprises a first U-shaped part and a second U-shaped part (see Figure 5 of Carnevali) connected to the first U-shaped part, but fails to include a third U-shaped part connected to the second U-shaped part. Carnevali shows two U-shaped parts where the strap (20) is fed through the ends of the plate (24) but then the strap simply attaches back to itself instead of including a third U-shaped part. Burns teaches that it was already known for a hand strap comprising a first U-shaped part (see A below) and a second U-shaped part (see B below) connected to the first U-shaped part to further include a third U-shaped part (see C below) connected to the second U-shaped part. Compare this annotated Figure to Applicant’s Figure 2 which shows first, second, and third U-shaped parts 232, 234, and 236. The third U-shaped part of Burns is the result of using a fixing ring (88) for strap adjustability. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the hand strap design of the modified Murchison cover with a hand strap comprising a third U-shaped part formed at a fixing ring, where such hand strap design was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Burns. The proposed modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known hand strap design for another to achieve predictable results. PNG media_image2.png 644 800 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 8, further comprising: a fixing ring, as taught by Burns and added above, wherein the first U-shaped part of the hand strap is fixed on the fixing ring (see A above). Regarding claim 10, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 9, wherein the second U-shaped part of the hand strap is fixed on the rotating plate, as originally taught by Carnevali and also taught by Burns. Regarding claim 11, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 10, wherein the third U-shaped part (see C above) of the hand strap passes through the fixing ring to adjust a tightness of the hand strap, as taught by Burns. Regarding claim 12, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 11, wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a bonding device, as taught by Burns (see “hook and loop” in col. 9 line 1 of Burns as well as Figures of Burns) fixed on the third U-shaped part of the hand strap to adjust the tightness of the hand strap according to a requirement. Regarding claim 14, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 13, but so far fails to include the rotatable hand strap module further comprising a fixing ring also formed in one piece with the rotating plate and hand strap. Burns teaches that it was already known for a rotatable hand strap module to further comprise a fixing ring (88) connected to the rotating plate (via the end of the strap), but Burns also fails to disclose the fixing ring, the rotating plate and the hand strap are formed in one piece using the double injection molding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the hand strap design of the modified Murchison cover with a hand strap comprising a third U-shaped part formed at a fixing ring, where such hand strap design was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Burns. The proposed modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known hand strap design for another to achieve predictable results. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have formed the hand strap, fixing ring, and rotating plate of Burns, now part of the modified Murchison cover, in one-piece since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Regarding the specific process of double injection molding, as set forth in MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, the modified Murchison cover now includes a hand strap integrally formed in one piece with a fixing ring and rotating plate. This is the same product of the product-by-process claim and thus satisfies this claim limitation as currently presented. 8. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Carnevali (US 10,595,622 B2) as applied above, further in view of Cheng (US 2006/0160586 A1). Regarding claim 19, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 18, but so far fails to include a plurality of fixing devices penetrating through the first protective corner, the second protective corner, the third protective corner and the fourth protective corner to fix the first protective corner on the first corner of the electronic device, the second protective corner on the second corner of the electronic device, the third protective corner on the third corner of the electronic device, and the fourth protective corner on the fourth corner of the electronic device. Murchison only mentions the corners (103) being friction fit to retain the electronic device therein (see col. 4 lines 20-26) where in a typical (but not limited) embodiment, the electronic device will not physically separate from the cover under “ordinary” usage and that a user doesn’t need tools to remove the cover from the device (see col. 3 lines 51-62). Cheng teaches that it was already known in the art to secure a cover (100) to an electronic device (140) using corner screws (150). A person of ordinary skill in the art would read the disclosure of Murchison and understand through their own available knowledge and reasoning that a more demanding or forceful physical use of the covered Murchison device may result in the cover being inadvertently separated from the electronic device and would have found it obvious to have better secured the cover to the electronic device using corner screws, where such securement was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Cheng, and where such securement would predictably result in a device less likely to inadvertently separate from the cover. Regarding claim 20, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 19, wherein Murchison discloses the second protective shell is configured to rotate along the pivot to allow the electronic device to stand on a surface (see Figures 5) when some of the fixing devices are released to separate the third protective corner from the third corner of the electronic device and the fourth protective corner from the fourth corner of the electronic device. 9. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Carnevali (US 10,595,622 B2) as applied above, further in view of Springer et al. (US 2011/0240448 A1). Regarding claim 23, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the pivot protrudes from the first protective shell and the second protective shell such that the rotating plate is at least partially concealed by the pivot in a projection (i.e. viewing angle) from the pivot to the rotating plate. Murchison shows a living hinge (107) in his figures, which would not block any part of the hand strap module from view, but does disclose that the hinge can be “any structure that enables the first and second portions 101 and 102 to move relative to one another while remaining physically connected to one another” (see col. 5 lines 45-49). Springer teaches another type of hinge suitable for use in an electronic device cover where the hinge protrudes from the exterior surface (see Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the depicted living hinge of Murchison with another known type of hinge, as seemingly suggested by Murchison himself, in this case a hinge of the type that protrudes, as taught by Springer, as a simple substitution of one known hinge design for another in order to achieve predictable results. This protruding hinge of the modified Murchison cover would at least partially conceal the rotating plate in a projection (i.e. viewing angle) from the pivot to the rotating plate. 10. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Carnevali (US 10,595,622 B2) as applied above, further in view of Wen (US 2013/0313142 A1). Regarding claim 23, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the pivot protrudes from the first protective shell and the second protective shell such that the rotating plate is at least partially concealed by the pivot in a projection (i.e. viewing angle) from the pivot to the rotating plate. Murchison shows a living hinge (107) in his figures, which would not block any part of the hand strap module from view, but does disclose that the hinge can be “any structure that enables the first and second portions 101 and 102 to move relative to one another while remaining physically connected to one another” (see col. 5 lines 45-49). Regarding claim 24, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the pivot comprises a first portion protruding from the first protective shell, a second portion protruding from the first protective shell, and a third portion protruding from the second protective shell and disposed between the first portion and the second portion. Wen teaches another type of hinge suitable for use in an electronic device cover where the hinge protrudes from the exterior surface (see Figure 1) and includes a third portion (45) between first and second portions (43) as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the depicted living hinge of Murchison with another known type of hinge, as seemingly suggested by Murchison himself, in this case a hinge with three portions as claimed and of the type that protrudes, as taught by Wen, as a simple substitution of one known hinge design for another in order to achieve predictable results. This protruding hinge of the modified Murchison cover would at least partially conceal the rotating plate in a projection (i.e. viewing angle) from the pivot to the rotating plate. Response to Arguments 11. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/23/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive but are also moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the most recent claim amendments. Conclusion 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20140202899, 20200341521, 8230992, and 8503170 all disclose related hinged covers. 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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. /JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 10/1/26