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 .
Election/Restrictions
Per the interview of 3/6/26, Applicant has elected the cradle of FIG. 41 and the interface apparatus/support system of Species 13, FIGS. 22-23, without traverse.
Claims 5-12 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the interview of 3/6/26.
Drawings
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 pocket is attached to the wearable article at least at a top side and a bottom side of the pocket when the pocket is oriented vertically must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not detail the attachment of the pocket of the elected embodiment, and so does not disclose that the pocket is attached to the wearable article at least at a top side and a bottom side of the pocket when the pocket is oriented vertically.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claim 16
The drawings do not show and the specification does not detail the particulars of how the pocket of the elected embodiment is attached and so does not disclose that the pocket is attached to the wearable article at least at a top side and a bottom side of the pocket when the pocket is oriented vertically. As such, this subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With Respect to Claim 13
Although Applicant has indicated that claim 13 reads on the elected species, it recites the wearable article with first and second sides with the magnet on the first side and in a pocket and the second magnet on the second side. Ordinarily, one would interpret the first and second sides to be the interior and exterior of the garment with the pocket on the exterior side, and as such it is unclear what the breadth of the claim language is in order to read on the elected embodiment. For the purposes of Examination on the merits, Examiner takes the claim language to be at least broad enough to encompass the first side being the side facing the user which includes the side of the structure forming the outer wall of the pocket that faces the user and the second side being the side facing away from the user, in order to have the claim language read on the elected embodiment.
With Respect to Claims 14-16
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0182088 to Roberts (Roberts).
With Respect to Claim 1
A support system for an electronic device comprising: a wearable article (e.g. shirt 302, FIG. 3); a pocket (305) formed on the wearable article; a first magnet (102a) positioned in the pocket; and a second magnet (102b) affixed to the electronic device (318) and positioned on the wearable article such that the electronic device is supported on the wearable article by attraction of the second magnet to the first magnet (see, e.g. [0003], [0070]).
With Respect to Claim 2
The support system of claim 1, wherein the second magnet is directly affixed to the electronic device (noting the disclosure to integrate it with the object, it is Examiner’s position that being integrated with the object inherently indicates that it is directly affixed to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 4
The support system of claim 1, wherein the wearable article includes a first, interior side and a second, exterior side, and the pocket is formed on the second, exterior side (see, e.g. FIG. 3).
With Respect to Claim 13
A support system for an electronic device comprising: a wearable article (e.g. shirt 302) including a first side (side facing the user) and a second side; a metal plate or a first magnet (102a in the pocket) positioned on the first side of the wearable article and affixed to the wearable article (affixed via the pocket and/or by the magnetic attraction between the first magnet and the second magnet during use or alternately it is disclosed that it may be integrally formed which is affixed to the extent claimed); and a second magnet (102b) affixed to the electronic device (318) and positioned on the second side of the wearable article (i.e. on the side facing away from the wearer) such that the electronic device is supported on the wearable article by attraction of the magnet to the metal plate, wherein the wearable article includes a pocket (303) and the pocket contains the first magnet or the metal plate.
With Respect to Claim 14
The support system of claim 13, wherein the second magnet is directly affixed to the electronic device (noting the disclosure to integrate it with the object, it is Examiner’s position that being integrated with the object inherently indicates that it is directly affixed to the extent claimed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0182088 to Roberts (Roberts) as applied to claim 1 or 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0159840 to Qadri (Qadri).
With Respect to Claims 2 and 14
As an alternative to the rejection of these claims above, Qadri discloses forming a similar support system for a mobile electronic device including first and second magnets similar to those claimed, wherein the second magnet is directly affixed to the electronic device (e.g. via adhesive, double sided tape, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Qadri, to directly affix the second magnet to the electronic device (e.g. via adhesive, double sided tape, or the like) as taught by Qadri, for the art known benefits of that type of attachment and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism to use.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0182088 to Roberts (Roberts) as applied to claim 1 or 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,185,953 to Whitten (Whitten).
With Respect to Claim 3
The support system of claim 1, but does not disclose a particular attachment mechanism and so does not disclose wherein the second magnet is affixed to a case configured to hold the electronic device.
However, Whitten discloses a similar support system for a mobile device wherein the second magnet (e.g. 802, FIG. 8C and description) is affixed to a case (102, 104, and related structure, see FIGS. 1 and 6 showing affixing other embodiments to the case) configured to hold the electronic device in order to allow for attaching the system to a magnetic surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Whitten, to affix the second magnet to a case configured to hold the electronic device, in order to obtain the benefits of the case (e.g. protection for the device, aesthetic appeal) in combination with the magnetic attachment system of Roberts, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism to use.
With Respect to Claim 15
The support system of claim 13, but does not disclose a particular attachment mechanism and so does not disclose wherein the second magnet is affixed to a case configured to hold the electronic device.
However, Whitten discloses a similar support system for a mobile device wherein the second magnet (e.g. 802, FIG. 8C and description) is affixed to a case (102, 104, and related structure, see FIGS. 1 and 6 showing affixing other embodiments to the case) configured to hold the electronic device in order to allow for attaching the system to a magnetic surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Whitten, to affix the second magnet to a case configured to hold the electronic device, in order to obtain the benefits of the case (e.g. protection for the device, aesthetic appeal) in combination with the magnetic attachment system of Roberts, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate attachment mechanism to use..
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2014/0182088 to Roberts (Roberts) as applied to claim 1 or 13 above, and further in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2005/0246823 to Groom (Groom) or U.S. Patent #2,421,695 to Henson (Henson).
With Respect to Claim 16
The support system of claim 13, but does not detail the particulars of the pocket and so does not disclose wherein the pocket is attached to the wearable article at least at a top side and a bottom side of the pocket when the pocket is oriented vertically.
However, Groom discloses a similar wearable article/shirt including a pocket that is attached to the wearable article/shirt at least at a top side and a bottom side of the pocket when the pocket is oriented vertically (for clarity, it discloses common pocket construction wherein the two side edges and bottom edge are attached, and the attachment along the top and bottom of each side is considered sufficient to meet the breadth of this claim language); Henson discloses a similar wearable article/shirt including a pocket that is attached to the wearable article/shirt at least at a top side and a bottom side of the pocket when the pocket is oriented vertically (noting disclosed seam around all edges other than the open side 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Groom or Henson, to use the support system of Roberts with a shirt having a pocket as taught by either reference, for the benefits disclosed by either reference for its wearable item/shirt and pocket structure and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate wearable item/shirt to use with the support system or a mere substitution of one art known shirt/pocket structure for another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights