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 .
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/899,566, filed 8/30/22, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
The instant application has Divisional status, however, there is no apparent disclosure directed to the “extensions in the extended position are no longer than 3 inches in length from the grip to the base”. This appears to be New Matter and the effective filing date of the application is determined to be 8/16/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2 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.
In Claim 2, line 7, the “finger print side of fingers” is indefinite. It is not clear what method step is being claimed.
In Claim 2, line 3, the phrase “as recited in claim 1” should be stated after “its case” in line 4.
In Claim 2, line 5, the “handheld device” is unclear. This should likely be “the handheld touch screen electronic device”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the back of a hand-held touch screen" in lines 1, 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its case" in lines 2, 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extensions" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hinges" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opposite end of the extensions" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extensions" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extensions" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the extended position" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the collapsed position" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the handheld device" in 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the handheld device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "handheld device’s case" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "handheld device’s case" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the back" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "or it’s case" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "each received finger" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the two structures" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the extension" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "it’s case" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the front" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the handheld device" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the apparatus collapsing" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the handheld device" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grieve, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0069512.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieve, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0069512.
Regarding Claim 1, Grieve teaches:
A one hand gripping apparatus (4) fastened or built into the back of a hand-held touch screen electronic device or its case (6);
a base (10) fastened or built into, the back of the hand-held touch screen electronic device or its case;
two or more separated flat rectangular-shaped extensions (14, 18) that extend from the base and are attached to the base with a hinge (20, 22, 30, 36), the extensions rotate at the hinges, movable between a collapsed, closed position and an extended, open position (paragraph [0054], figs. 4A, B);
a grip (16) is attached to the opposite end of the extensions with a hinge (30, 36)
the extensions in the extended position are no longer than 3 inches in length from the grip to the base (see figs. 5A-C, see https://www.healthline.com/health/average-hand-size#children);
the apparatus in the collapsed position lies flat to the handheld device (fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Examiner notes that the above method step limitations are considered anticipated over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered disclosed when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677