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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/8/24, 1/7/25, 7/7/25, and 10/9/25 are noted. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Burns et al. (US 9,204,710 B1).
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. Burns teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a rotatable hand strap module (10) rotatably installed on a portable electronic device to make it easier to hold and rotate during use (see col. 1 line 19 - col. 2 line 54). 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 Burns 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 Burns.
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 5, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 1, wherein Burns discloses the rotatable hand strap module comprises: a rotating plate (14) rotatably installed on the second protective shell; and a hand strap (26) penetrating through the rotating plate (see Figure 2 of Burns).
Regarding claim 6, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 5, wherein Burns discloses the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a fixed shaft (46/48) penetrating through the rotating plate (14) and the second protective shell (element 16 of Burns effectively becomes part of the second shell 102 of the modified Murchison cover once attached thereto - nothing in the current claims defines the shell in a manner that prohibits this interpretation) to allow the rotatable hand strap module to rotatably install on the second protective shell.
Regarding claim 7, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 6, wherein Burns discloses the fixed shaft comprises: an internal thread sleeve nut (46) penetrating through the rotating plate (14 of Burns) and the second protective shell (16 of Burns, which becomes part of the second shell 102 of Murchison once attached thereto); and an external thread bolt (48) fixed to the internal thread sleeve nut so that the rotatable hand strap module is rotatably installed on the second protective shell.
Regarding claim 8, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 5, wherein Burns discloses the hand strap comprises a first U-shaped part (see A below), a second U-shaped part (see B below) connected to the first U-shaped part and 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 8, wherein Burns discloses the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a fixing ring (88), wherein the first U-shaped part of the hand strap is fixed on the fixing ring (see Figure 2 of Burns).
Regarding claim 10, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 9, wherein Burns discloses the second U-shaped part (see B above) of the hand strap is fixed on the rotating plate (14).
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 (see Figure 2 of Burns).
Regarding claim 12, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 11, wherein Burns discloses the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a bonding device (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 13, Murchison as applied above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 5, wherein the rotating plate of the rotatable hand strap module is connected to the hand strap, as taught by Burns, but so far fails to include the rotating plate and the hand strap are formed in one piece using double injection molding. Burns shows the hand strap (26) formed as a separate piece from the rotating plate (14) 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 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 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 14, Murchison as applied above fails to include the electronic device protective cover of claim 13, and while Burns discloses wherein the rotatable hand strap module further comprises a fixing ring (88) connected to the rotating plate (via the end of the strap), Burns fails to disclose the fixing ring, the rotating plate and the hand strap are formed in one piece using the double injection molding. Burns shows the hand strap (26), fixing ring (88), and rotating plate (14) all formed as separate pieces 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, 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.
Regarding claim 15, Murchison as modified above would include the electronic device protective cover of claim 14, wherein Burns discloses the rotatable hand strap module further comprises: a bonding device (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 16, Murchison discloses an electronic device protective cover to protect an electronic device (electronic device not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “to protect”), 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. Burns teaches that it was already known in the art to provide a rotatable hand strap module (10) rotatably installed on a portable electronic device to make it easier to hold and rotate during use (see col. 1 line 19 - col. 2 line 54). 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 Burns 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 Burns.
Regarding claim 17. The electronic device protective cover of claim 16, 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).
6. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murchison et al. (US 9,307,656 B2) in view of Burns et al. (US 9,204,710 B1) 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.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
8. 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 1/5/26