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 .
Claim limitations “first locking part” and “second locking part” in claims 1, 12, and 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-2, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayeski et al. (11633025) in view of Lee (9762279).
PNG
media_image1.png
844
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(16) FIG. 1 illustrates a carrying case 100 for a game controller. Carrying case 100 includes a top portion 120, a bottom portion 130, a handle 140, a stand 150, and a zipper 160. These elements are each discussed in further detail in the description below. FIG. 2 illustrates a perspective view of carrying case 100 in the closed position.
Any of the flexible links may include any type of flexible material, hinge, and/or living hinge which allows the attached panels or items to move, pivot, or rotate relative to each other while remaining attached.
Rayeski teaches a passport case comprising: a case body (100) comprising a storage space; a first locking part (note zipper 160) coupled with the case body and configured to open or close the storage space; a cover (150) provided on an outer side of the case body; a hinge (400) provided configured to fold the cover and adjust an angle of the cover; and a second locking part (159/122) configured to fasten the cover to the case body. Note that “passport case” does not impart any structure over the case in Rayeski and the case 100 is capable of storing a passport as claimed. Rayeski teaches that any other type of hinges can be used, cited above. Rayeski meets all claimed limitations except for the hinge provided inside the cover.
PNG
media_image2.png
692
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(18) FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating the top cover of FIG. 1, without the textile cover, showing the hinges. Plastic supports 32 and 34 are shown forming top cover sections 16 and 18, respectively, without the textile covers. Two metal hinge assemblies 36 and 38 are shown, attached to the plastic supports 32 and 34.
(29) The fabric covering the top cover on the outside is ideally a fabric which can stretch and extend as the two sections are bent to form the stand. Conversely, a fabric or material on the inner surface of the top cover can have properties of easily compressing when folded and then returning to its original shape when laid flat again.
Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide hinges that being used in a cover device that can be placed on the inside of the two outer and inner layers (cited above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the hinge inside the two layers of 150 as taught by Lee to provide an alternative and durable hinge structure.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 20 note an upper cover (120) and a lower cover (130) configured to hold or unfold at a center of a hinge surface; at least one pocket (181a/181b) comprise the fitting grooves formed on the upper cover, in other words, there are grooves formed by the edges of the pockets 181A and 181B similar to that of the grooves forming the pockets in applicant’s invention; and a passport holder (175) formed on the lower cover.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayeski in view of Lee, as set forth above, and further in view of Hutchins et al. (4836374) and Maistrellis (7909234). Rayeski does not a locking and support member with a first magnet provided inside the locking and support member; and a first metal piece provided inside the upper cover of the case body to attach to the first magnet. Hutchins teach a closing structure of a support member 6 for connecting between the two shells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a support member as taught by Hutchins to allow the opening of the case easily. For the magnets, Maistrellis teaches that it is known in the art to provide magnets on the inside of the flap 43 and the metal piece on the body 45. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnet on the inside of the flap 6 of Hutchins and the metal piece on the body of the case to provide alternative fastening for het case and allow one to open the case easily.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, regarding a connection member attached to the lower cover of the case body; and an auxiliary storage and mounting part attached to the connection member, wherein an angle of the auxiliary storage and mounting part is configured to be adjusted by the hinge and the auxiliary storage and mounting part is configured to hold a mobile device. As broadly recited the cover in Rayeski comprises a connection member an auxiliary storage and mounting part attached to the connection member 151 attached to the lower cover of the case body, an auxiliary storage and mounting part attached to the connection member 152 and an angle of the auxiliary storage and mounting part is configured to be adjusted by the hinge and the auxiliary storage and mounting part is configured to hold a mobile device in fig. 7.
Claims 5-10, and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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 Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733