DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 4/30/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The office was unable to obtain a copy per the notice mailed 9/30/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In this case, Examiner has cited all of these references on the PTO-892 form and they have been considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because “slidbly” in line 6 should be “slidably”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu Li (US 2004/0179678 A1) in view of Liu (US D956,660 S), Fan (US 6,932,331 B1), and Wang (US 5,555,302 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu Li discloses a phone holder comprising a fixed buckle (3) and a pulling buckle (4); the fixed buckle is fixedly mounted (via 12) on a top shell (10); the pulling buckle is slidably mounted (via 41) on the top shell; clamping holders (inner faces of 32,42) are disposed on an inner side of the fixed buckle and an inner side of the pulling buckle; wherein a rack (43) is disposed on one side of the pulling buckle; a gear (46) is rotatably mounted (via 47) in the top shell; the gear is engaged (via 49) with the rack; a through hole (hole for 60) is defined in one side of the top shell; an unlocking button (60) mounted in the through hole that effectively disengages a tooth (53) from the gear (see Figure 4). Hsu Li fails to disclose a bicycle bag body, the top shell being fixedly mounted on the bicycle bag body. Hsu Li also fails to disclose the unlocking mechanism being a switch rotatably mounted in the through hole; engaging teeth are disposed on an inner side of the unlocking switch; when the unlocking switch is turned toward one side thereof, the engaging teeth engage with the gear.
Regarding the bicycle bag body, Liu shows that it was already known in the art to fixedly mounted a phone holder on top of a bicycle bag body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have mounted the top shell of Hsu Li to the top of a bicycle bag, where such phone holder mounting location was already known in the art, as shown by Liu, and in order to allow a bike rider to have easy visible access to their phone while riding.
Regarding the switch, Fan teaches that it was already known in the art for a phone holder unlocking mechanism to include a switch (62) rotatably mounted within a housing opening where the rotating switch disengages a tooth of the system. 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 push button unlocking switch of Hsu Li with a rotating switch like that of Fan as a simple substitution of one known unlocking switch design for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between such known unlocking switch designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding the switch having a plurality of teeth, Wang teaches that it was already known in the art for an unlocking switch to include a plurality of teeth (72) for engaging the gear of a phone holder system like that of Hsu Li. 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 single tooth switch design of Hsu Li with a multiple teeth switch design like that of Wang as a simple substation of one known unlocking switch tooth/teeth design for another. There is no inventive step in simply choosing between such known unlocking switch tooth/teeth designs absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Hsu Li as modified above would include the bicycle bag with the phone holder according to claim 1. The modified Hsu Li phone holder now includes a rotating unlocking switch that would not be much different than the lever (50) originally shown by Hsu Li except now the distal end of the lever would protrude through the housing opening and there would be a new pivot point along the length of the lever similar to that of Fan and the other end would include a plurality of teeth as taught by Wang. The new rotating switch would include wherein the engaging teeth are integrally formed at a left end of an inner side of the unlocking switch; when the unlocking switch is turned leftwards, the engaging teeth are engaged with the gear.
Regarding claim 7, Hsu Li as modified above would include the bicycle bag with the phone holder according to claim 1, wherein Hsu Li discloses a lower cover (81) is mounted on a bottom side of the top shell by second screws (see Figure 1); the gear and the unlocking switch are rotatably mounted between the top shell and the lower cover (see Figure 1).
8. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu Li (US 2004/0179678 A1) in view of Liu (US D956,660 S), Fan (US 6,932,331 B1), and Wang (US 5,555,302 A) as applied above, further in view of Wang (US 6,256,387 B1 - hereafter referred to as Wang ‘387).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu Li as modified above would include the bicycle bag with the phone holder according to claim 1, wherein Hsu Li discloses an upper cover (20) is fixedly mounted on the top shell through first screws (12); the upper cover covers the pulling buckle (see Figure 1). Hsu Li fails to disclose sliding grooves are defined in a bottom side of the upper cover; a left end of each of the sliding grooves extends out of a left side edge of the upper cover; horizontal ribs are disposed on an upper side of the pulling buckle; the horizontal ribs are one-to-one slidably mounted in the sliding grooves. Hsu Li discloses such grooves (24) and ribs (34) for adjustment of the fixed buckle (see [0028]) but fails to disclose similar structure for the pulling buckle. Wang ‘387 shows that it was already known in the art for both buckles (3) to include horizontal ribs (315) on upper surfaces thereof to be slidably mounted in grooves (43) in a bottom side of an upper cover (4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the pulling buckle of Hsu Li with ribs and the left side of the top shell with grooves in order to match the guided sliding structure already found in Hsu Li’s fixed buckle, where such guided sliding of both buckles was already known in the art, as shown by Wang ‘387.
Regarding claim 5, Hsu Li as modified above would include the bicycle bag with the phone holder according to claim 4, wherein Hsu Li discloses at least one reset tension spring (45) is mounted between the pulling buckle and the top shell. Any spring can be a compression spring or a tension spring. The term “tension spring” alone does not impart any patentably distinguishing structure to the claimed spring over the functionally compressive spring of Hsu Li.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu Li (US 2004/0179678 A1) in view of Liu (US D956,660 S), Fan (US 6,932,331 B1), and Wang (US 5,555,302 A) as applied above, further in view of Ormsbee et al. (US 10,587,739 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu Li as modified above would include the bicycle bag with the phone holder according to claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein rubber pads are respectively fixedly mounted on the clamping holders. Ormsbee teaches that it was already known in the art for buckles like those of Hsu Li to include rubber pads (125) for gripping the clamped item (see col. 4 lines 10-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided rubber pads on the buckles of Hsu Li, the motivation being to improve grip, as taught by Ormsbee.
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu Li (US 2004/0179678 A1) in view of Liu (US D956,660 S), Fan (US 6,932,331 B1), and Wang (US 5,555,302 A) as applied above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 5,573,163 A).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu Li as modified above would include the bicycle bag with the phone holder according to claim 7, wherein the bicycle bag body comprises a bottom shell, as taught by Liu, but so far fails to include an inner support, and a zipper; the inner support covers the bottom shell and is mounted on the bottom shell; the zipper is sewn and fixed between the bottom shell and the top shell. Lee teaches that it was already known to support a device attached to the top of a bicycle bag with an inner support (25); the inner support covers (is located above and thus covers to at least some degree) the bottom shell (bottom portion of the bag) and is mounted on the bottom shell (indirectly via the rest of the bag); wherein a zipper (21) is sewn and fixed between the bottom shell and the top shell (see Figures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have attached the phone holder of Hsu Li atop any known bicycle bag design, including a flexible bag with a zipper like that of Lee, and to have reinforced the attachment of the phone holder with the top shell by using an inner support, as taught by Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3, 6, and 10 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.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 12/2/25
Prosecution Insights