DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in reply to the response filed 04/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending;
Claims 1-10 and 15-17 are original; claims 11-14 have been withdrawn;
Claims 1-10 and 15-17 are rejected herein.
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
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (Figures 1-4) in the response filed 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "3" (specification, page 27, line 17).
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, "along second axis" appears to be --along the second axis--.
Claim 7, line 2, "this section" appears to be --the at least one section of the frame element--.
Claim 8, line 5, "can be received" appears to be --are adapted to be received--, --are receivable--, or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 6, 7, 10, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations "the angle is between at least 10° and up to 135°" in lines 1 and 2 are indefinite. It is not clear as to what range is being claimed. The metes and the bounds of the scope of claim 4 cannot be ascertained. Does Applicant mean --between 10° and 135°--? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations "wherein the holding apparatus further comprises: a frame element with a front side facing the vehicle interior" in claim 6 (lines 1-3) positively recite the "vehicle interior" as a required structure within the scope of claim 1, since the language "facing" in the instant case introduces a positive recitation thereafter. However, the "vehicle interior" is functionally recited in the preamble of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, "A holding apparatus for holding a mobile device in a vehicle interior" (claim 1, line 1), as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. The positive recitation of the "vehicle interior" in the body of claim 6, which requires the functional recitation of the "vehicle interior" of claim 1, renders the scope of claim 6 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 6 is directed to a combination of the "holding apparatus" and the "vehicle interior" or directed to a subcombination of the "holding apparatus" adapted to be used with the "vehicle interior." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in claim 6 or properly place the "vehicle interior" in intended use consistently throughout claim 6. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitation of the "vehicle interior" in the body of claim 6, claim 6 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "holding apparatus" and the "vehicle interior." Similar rejection and similar interpretation apply to the limitations in claim 17 (in lines 2-4, where the "vehicle interior" is positively recited thrice as a required structure within the scope of claim 17, and claim 17 is considered as being directed to a combination of the "holding apparatus" and the "vehicle interior"). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation "in a frame-like manner" in lines 5 and 6 is indefinite. It is not clear as to what "frame-like" exactly means in the instant case. What is considered to be "frame-like"? The metes and the bounds of the scope of claim 6 cannot be ascertained. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the complementary shaped sections" (lines 1 and 2) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 1-10 and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rassent et al. (US 9,270,318 B2), hereinafter Rassent, in view of Li et al. (CN 113904456 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Rassent discloses a holding apparatus (10, fig 19) for holding a mobile device (A, fig 19) in a vehicle interior (see Figures 1 and 19), the holding apparatus comprising: a support element (30, fig 19) having a support surface (104, fig 19) for supporting the mobile device (see Figure 19), wherein the support element is movable along a first axis (Z, fig 1) between a raised position (PL, fig 19) and a lowered position (PU, fig 23); at least one holding element (126, fig 19) for reversibly holding and releasing the mobile device (see Figures 15-28), wherein the at least one holding element is movable along a second axis (X, fig 1) between a holding position (PS, fig 23) for holding the mobile device and a release position (PR, fig 19) for releasing the mobile device; and a drive device (118, fig 19) configured to move the at least one holding element along the second axis (see Figure 29).
Rassent does not disclose the holding apparatus, wherein the drive device is configured to move the support element along the first axis.
Li teaches a holding apparatus (see Figures 2 and 3) for holding a mobile device (A, fig 2) in a vehicle interior (see Figures 1-3), the holding apparatus comprising: a support element (3, fig 3) having a support surface for supporting the mobile device (see Figure 3), wherein the support element is movable along a first axis between a raised position and a lowered position (see Figure 2); and a drive device (4, fig 4, also see Figures 2 and 3) configured to move the support element along the first axis (see Figures 2 and 3).
Rassent and Li are analogous art because they are at least from the same filed of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the drive device (Rassent: 118, fig 19) to be configured to move the support element (Rassent: 30, fig 19) along the first axis (Li: see Figures 2 and 3), as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow automatic raising and lowering of the support member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rassent and Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein in the holding position the at least one holding element overlaps at least sectionally with the support surface of the support element (Rassent: see Figure 23).
Regarding claim 3, wherein at least one of: i) the second axis extends at an angle to the first axis (Rassent: see Figures 1 and 19-23) or ii) the at least one holding element is translationally movable (Rassent: see Figures 19-23).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the angle is between at least 10° and up to 135° (Rassent: see Figures 1 and 19-23).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the at least one holding element comprises at least one coupling section (Rassent: 88, fig 19) for coupling to the drive device (Rassent: see Figure 29, the at least one coupling section is capable of performing the above intended use), wherein the at least one coupling section overlaps with a rear side (Rassent: 106, fig 19) of the support element facing away from the support surface, at least when the holding position is assumed (Rassent: see Figure 23).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the holding apparatus further comprises: a frame element (Rassent: 14, fig 19) with a front side facing the vehicle interior (Rassent: see Figures 1 and 19), wherein at least one of: i) the support element is arranged flush with the front side of the frame element (Rassent: see Figure 19) or ii) the frame element extends adjacent to at least two sides of the support element or encloses the support element in a frame-like manner (Rassent: see Figures 1 and 19).
Regarding claim 7, wherein at least one section (Rassent: 14a, fig 19, see annotation below, see the boxed section) of the frame element is opposite the support element such that the support element is supported on this section during movement along the first axis with reversible deformation of the frame element at least in some areas (Rassent: 110, 130, fig 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (14a – At Least One Section)]
Regarding claim 8, Rassent, as modified by Li with respect to claim 1, teaches the holding apparatus, wherein the at least one holding element, viewed along the second axis, comprises a first end section (Rassent: 62, fig 19) which, when moved along the second axis, is movable relative to an adjacent region (Rassent: 14b, fig 19, see annotation below, see the boxed region) of the holding apparatus, wherein, at least when the release position is assumed, the first end section can be received into the adjacent region at least sectionally (Rassent: see Figures 17 and 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (14b – Adjacent Region)]
Rassent, as modified by Li with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the holding apparatus, wherein the adjacent region can be received into the first end section.
Rassent teaches a first end section (70, fig 17) and an adjacent region (see Figure 16, the region of the equipment 12 as shown in Figures 16 and 17), wherein the adjacent region can be received into the first end section at least sectionally (see Figure 17, e.g., via the finger 98).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first end section (Rassent: 70, fig 19), such that the adjacent region (Rassent: 14b, fig 19) can be received into the first end section at least sectionally (Rassent: see Figure 17), as taught by Rassent, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to regulate the movement of the at least one holding element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rassent and Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first end section and the adjacent region are complementary shaped at least sectionally (Rassent: see Figure 17).
[AltContent: textbox (complementary shaped at least sectionally)]
PNG
media_image2.png
286
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (96a – Toothing )]Regarding claim 10, wherein the complementary shaped sections (Rassent: 96of the first end section and the adjacent region each have a toothing (Rassent: 96a, fig 17, see annotation below, the toothing of the first end section 70; and, Rassent: 128, fig 19, as modified by, Rassent: 98, fig 17).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 17, Rassent, as modified by Li with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the holding apparatus, further comprising: a covering skin with a front side facing the vehicle interior and a rear side facing away from the vehicle interior, wherein the covering skin conceals at least the support element with respect to the vehicle interior and is connected thereto for a common movement.
Rassent teaches a holding apparatus (10, fig 4) for holding a mobile device (A, fig 4) in a vehicle interior (see Figures 1 and 4), the holding apparatus comprising: a support element (30, 40, fig 4) having a support surface (42, fig 4) for supporting the mobile device; and a covering skin (38, fig 4) with a front side facing the vehicle interior (see Figures 1-4) and a rear side facing away from the vehicle interior (see Figures 1-4), wherein the covering skin conceals at least the support element with respect to the vehicle interior and is connected thereto for a common movement (see Figures 1-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the holding apparatus (Rassent: 10, fig 19) with a covering skin (Rassent: 38, fig 4) with a front side facing the vehicle interior (Rassent: see Figures 1-4) and a rear side facing away from the vehicle interior (Rassent: see Figures 1-4), wherein the covering skin conceals at least the support element (Rassent: 30, fig 19) with respect to the vehicle interior and is connected thereto for a common movement (Rassent: see Figures 1-4)., as taught by Rassent, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow uniform skin for the support member and the frame element to enhance aesthetic effect when the mobile device is not used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rassent and Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rassent et al. (US 9,270,318 B2), hereinafter Rassent, in view of Li et al. (CN 113904456 A1), hereinafter Li, and Cheng et al. (US 10,861,301 B1), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 15, Rassent, as modified by Li with respect to claim 1, teaches the holding apparatus, further comprising: a sensor arrangement (Li: 5, 7, fig 4) having: at least one second sensor (Li: 5, fig 5) configured to generate one or more second measurement signals indicating whether the mobile device is present in the holding apparatus (Li: see translation, page 5, paragraph 6 and 7).
Rassent, as modified by Li with respect to claim 1, does not teach the holding apparatus, wherein the sensor arrangement has: at least one first sensor, wherein the at least one first sensor is configured to generate one or more measurement signals indicating whether a user wants to at least one of insert the mobile device into the holding apparatus or remove the mobile device from the holding apparatus.
Cheng teaches a holding apparatus (see Figure 2) for holding a mobile device (18, fig 2) in a vehicle interior (see Figure 2), the holding apparatus comprising: a sensor arrangement (21, 22, 23, fig 3) having: at least one first sensor (231, 232, fig 5), wherein the at least one first sensor is configured to generate one or more measurement signals indicating whether a user wants to at least one of insert the mobile device into the holding apparatus or remove the mobile device from the holding apparatus (col 9, lines 34-47), and at least one second sensor (32, fig 11) configured to generate one or more second measurement signals indicating whether the mobile device is present in the holding apparatus (col 15, lines 63-67, col 16, lines 1-7).
Cheng is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the sensor arrangement (Li: 5, 7, fig 4) as a sensor arrangement (Cheng: 21, 22, 23, fig 3) having: at least one first sensor (Cheng: 231, 232, fig 5), wherein the at least one first sensor is configured to generate one or more measurement signals indicating whether a user wants to at least one of insert the mobile device into the holding apparatus or remove the mobile device from the holding apparatus (Cheng: col 9, lines 34-47), and at least one second sensor (Cheng: 32, fig 11) configured to generate one or more second measurement signals indicating whether the mobile device is present in the holding apparatus (Cheng: col 15, lines 63-67, col 16, lines 1-7), as taught by Cheng, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow the user to more conveniently place and retrieve the mobile phone and check the condition thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rassent, Li, and Cheng to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, wherein the at least one first sensor includes a proximity sensor (Cheng: 232, fig 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for various supports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights