DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weakly (US 2012 / 0262618).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) a mobile device case (see (20, 28)), the mobile device (40) comprising at least one compartment (i.e., see (42, 44), an engaging part corresponding to (36), any arbitrary portion of (40), and/or any interior space of (20)) closed by a mobile device door (28) pivotable on a mobile device hinge (22), the mobile device case (see (20, 28)) comprising:
a protective shell (20, 28) configured to surround and protect at least a portion of the mobile device (40); and
a mobile device case door (32) coupled to the protective shell (20, 28) via a mobile device case hinge (see the part connecting (32) to (20)), the mobile device case door (32) pivotable on the mobile device case hinge (i.e., the part connecting (32) to (20)) between a closed position (see Fig. 1) and an open position (see Fig. 2),
wherein when the mobile device (40) is accommodated within the protective shell (20, 28), the at least one compartment (i.e., see (42, 44), an engaging part corresponding to (36), any arbitrary portion of (40), and/or any interior space of (20)) is accessible by way of the mobile device door (28) and the mobile device case door (32; see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0042] and [0044]-[0046]).
As pertaining to Claim 2, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that when the mobile device (40) is accommodated within the protective shell (20, 28), the mobile device case hinge (see the part connecting (32) to (20)) is coaxial (i.e., aligned along a same axial direction) with the mobile device hinge (22; again, see Fig. 2 and Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0042] and [0044]-[0046]).
As pertaining to Claim 4, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device (40) includes an actuator (see a portion at (34), for example) for opening the mobile device door (28), and wherein when the mobile device (40) is accommodated within the protective shell (20, 28), the actuator (again, see the portion at (34), for example) is accessible to open the mobile device door (28; see Fig. 1 and again, see Fig. 2 and Page 2, Para. [0043]).
As pertaining to Claim 5, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that when the mobile device case door (32) is in the closed position (see Fig. 1), opening the mobile device door (28) with the actuator (see a portion at (34), for example) causes movement of the mobile device case door (32) from the closed position (see Fig. 1) toward the open position (see Fig. 2; and see Page 2, Para. [0042]-[0044]).
As pertaining to Claim 6, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that the protective shell (20, 28) comprises at least one detent (i.e., a “feature” over (20)) configured to retain the mobile device case door (32) in the closed position (see Fig. 1), and opening the mobile device door (28) with the actuator (see a portion at (34), for example) causes the mobile device case door (32) to disengage from the at least one detent (i.e., the “feature” over (20)) to move toward the open position (see Fig. 2; and see Page 2, Para. [0042]-[0044]).
As pertaining to Claim 7, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that when the mobile device case door (32) is in the open position (see Fig. 2), closing the mobile device case door (32) also causes closing of the mobile device door (28; see Fig. 1; and see Page 2, Para. [0042] and [0044]).
As pertaining to Claim 8, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device case (see (20, 28)) includes an access port (i.e., a groove or indention; see Fig. 1) for enabling access to the actuator (see a portion at (34), for example) to open mobile device door (28; see Fig. 1; and see Page 2, Para. [0042]-[0044]).
As pertaining to Claim 9, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device door (28) and the mobile device case door (32) comprise respective windows (i.e., are transparent) to enable viewing contents of the at least one compartment (i.e., see (42, 44), an engaging part corresponding to (36), any arbitrary portion of (40), and/or any interior space of (20); and see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0042] and [0044]-[0046]).
As pertaining to Claim 10, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device (40) is a mobile payment processing device (i.e., a computer), the at least one compartment (i.e., see (42, 44), an engaging part corresponding to (36), any arbitrary portion of (40), and/or any interior space of (20)) is configured to contain at least one receipt printer roll (i.e., arbitrarily), and the mobile device door (28) and the mobile device case door (32) are sized to allow removal and replacement of the receipt printer roll (i.e., arbitrarily; again, see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0042] and [0044]-[0046]).
As pertaining to Claim 11, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) that the protective shell (20, 28) comprises a rigid substrate overmolded with an elastomer (i.e., plastic; see Page 2, Para. [0042]).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asakura (US 2003 / 0148798).
As pertaining to Claim 12, Asakura discloses (see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 3) a mobile device charging system (1, 10) comprising:
a mobile device case (i.e., a housing (2)) comprising a protective shell (see (2)) configured to surround and protect at least a portion (i.e., an internal portion) of a mobile device (i.e., a portable phone (1)); and
a mobile device charging cradle (10) having a cradle charging interface (see (12, 13)), wherein
the mobile device (1) includes a device charging interface (2e, 2B) on a first surface (i.e., a back surface) thereof (see Fig. 2B),
the protective shell (2) includes one or more apertures (i.e., holes, grooves, or indentations; see (2e)) on a portion of the protective shell (2) covering the first surface (i.e., the back surface),
the mobile device charging cradle (10) includes one or more projections (12) positioned to correspond to the one or more apertures (see (2e)), and
the one or more projections (12) directly contact the first surface (i.e., the back surface) of the mobile device (1) through the one or more apertures (see (2e) and note that the projections (12) contact the terminals (2e) through the holes, grooves, or indentations in (2b)) when the mobile device (1) is in the mobile device case (2) and the device charging interface (2e) is coupled to the cradle charging interface (see (12); and see Page 3, Para. [0041]-[0042], [0044], and [0047]).
As pertaining to Claim 13, Asakura discloses (see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device case (2) includes a charging opening (i.e., corresponding to (2e)) at a location corresponding to the device charging interface (see (2e, 2B); and again, see Page 3, Para. [0041]-[0042], [0044], and [0047]).
As pertaining to Claim 14, Asakura discloses (see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 3) that the one or more apertures (i.e., holes, grooves, or indentations corresponding to (2e)) comprise a pair of elongated apertures (see Fig. 2B) positioned on each side of the device charging interface (2e, 2B); and the one or more projections (12) comprise a pair of elongated projections (see Fig. 3) positioned to correspond to the pair of elongated apertures (2e; again, see Page 3, Para. [0041]-[0042], [0044], and [0047]).
As pertaining to Claim 15, Asakura discloses (see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device (1) is supported (i.e., charged) by only the pair of elongated projections (12) and the cradle charging interface (12, 13) when the mobile device (1) is in the mobile device case (2) and the device charging interface (2e, 2B) is coupled to the cradle charging interface (see (12, 13); and see Fig. 5 with Page 3, Para. [0041]-[0042], [0044], and [0047]).
As pertaining to Claim 16, Asakura discloses (see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device charging cradle (10) does not support the mobile device case (2) when the mobile device (1) is in the mobile device case (2) and the device charging interface (2e, 2B) is coupled to the cradle charging interface (see (12, 13); and see Fig. 5 and with Page 3, Para. [0041]-[0042], [0044], and [0047]; and note that the cradle portion (11) does not support the mobile device case (2) in a central portion).
As pertaining to Claim 17, Asakura discloses (see Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 3) that the mobile device charging cradle (10) does not contact the mobile device case (2) when the mobile device (1) is in the mobile device case (2) and the device charging interface (2e, 2B) is coupled to the cradle charging interface (see (12, 13); and see Fig. 5 and with Page 3, Para. [0041]-[0042], [0044], and [0047]; and note that the cradle portion (11) does not contact the mobile device case (2) in a central portion).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weakly in view of Appiah (US 2017 / 0257132).
(The Appiah reference was submitted by the applicant via the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received 16 December 2024.)
As pertaining to Claim 3, Weakly does not explicitly disclose the structural configuration of the mobile device case hinge (i.e., the part connecting (32) to (20)). That is, Weakly does not explicitly disclose that the mobile device case hinge (i.e., the part connecting (32) to (20)) comprises a pair of hinge pins coaxially aligned at each end of the mobile device hinge (22).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Appiah discloses (see Fig. 1) an implementation of a mobile device case (10) enclosing a mobile device (20), wherein a mobile device case hinge and/or mobile device hinge (see (13)) is utilized for operating a pivotable door (16) to access the mobile device (20) and/or any associated compartments, wherein the mobile device case hinge and/or mobile device hinge (see (13)) comprises a pair of hinge pins coaxially aligned (22; see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0014]-[0016]). It is a goal of Appiah to provide a mobile device case that is stylish, secure, light-weight, and moisture resistant, and is capable of being worn easily and secured (see Page 1, Para. [0003] and [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weakly with the teachings of Appiah, such that the mobile device case hinge (i.e., the part connecting (32) to (20)) comprises a pair of hinge pins coaxially aligned at each end of the mobile device hinge (22), as suggested by Appiah, in order to provide a mobile device case that is stylish, secure, light-weight, and moisture resistant, and is capable of being worn easily and secured using a design structure that is known in the art allow for effective opening and closing of the mobile device case door (32).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura in view of Weakly.
As pertaining to Claim 18, Asakura does not explicitly disclose that the protective shell comprises a rigid substrate overmolded with an elastomer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weakly discloses (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) a mobile device case (see (20, 28)) comprising a protective shell (20, 28) configured to surround and protect at least a portion of a mobile device (40), wherein the protective shell (20, 28) comprises a rigid substrate overmolded with an elastomer (i.e., plastic; see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0042] and [0044]-[0046]). It is a general goal of Weakly to provide an improved means for protecting a mobile device in any number of applications, including underwater applications (see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asakura with the teachings of Weakly, such that the protective shell comprises a rigid substrate overmolded with an elastomer, as suggested by Weakly, in order to provide an improved means for protecting a mobile device in any number of applications, including underwater applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klein et al. (US 10,521,046) discloses a mobile device case and a mobile device comprising a compartment that is similar to that disclosed in the instant application.
Emslie (US 2015 / 0286251) discloses a mobile charging system that is pertinent to the invention as recited in independent Claim 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights