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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101661659, hereinafter KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al. (US 2006/0126326 A1).
In regard to claim 1, KR ‘659 discloses a mobile terminal cover 1 (denoted “case”, see e.g. page 3, sixth full paragraph of English translation) for covering a mobile terminal (see e.g. page 3, third full paragraph of English translation) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
a camera 20 (denoted “camera module”, see e.g. page 3, fourth full paragraph of English translation),
the mobile terminal cover 1 being configured to form a cylinder 10 (denoted “hood unit”, see e.g. page 3, fourth full paragraph of English translation) for shielding light from a lens of the camera by folding a part (i.e. hood pieces 11, see e.g. page 3, sixth full paragraph of English translation) of a member (i.e. portion including hood pieces 11) of the mobile terminal cover 1 (see e.g. page 3, sixth full paragraph of English translation).
KR ‘659 fails to disclose
a light emitter.
However, Ng et al. discloses
a light emitter (see e.g. paragraph [0007] for LEDs in a mobile phone for a flash function).
Given the teachings of Ng et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of KR ‘659 with a light emitter.
Providing a light emitter for a flashing function in the device provides a better image quality obtained by the camera.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘659 (KR 101661659) in view of Ng et al. (US 2006/0126326 A1) and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 109471212).
In regard to claim 2, KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a part of the member is provided with an adhesive member for stabilizing the cylinder.
However, Yang et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein a part of the member (i.e. portion of element 1) is provided with an adhesive member 6 (denoted “foam double-sided rubber soft magnetic patch”, see e.g. page 5, sixth full paragraph) for stabilizing the cylinder 1 (denoted “light shielding member”, see e.g. page 3, last paragraph of English translation).
Given the teachings of Yang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al., with wherein a part of the member is provided with an adhesive member for stabilizing the cylinder.
Providing the adhesive member allows the light shading cylinder to be stably attached to the device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘659 (KR 101661659) in view of Ng et al. (US 2006/0126326 A1) and further in view of Seaton (US 2017/0212413 A1).
In regard to claim 3, KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a strap connected to the mobile terminal cover, and a cover connected to the strap, wherein the cover is made of a material softer than the member, and is configured to be attachable to the cylinder.
However, Seaton discloses (see e.g. Figures 3a-c, 7):
a strap 102 (denoted “flat rubber band”, see e.g. paragraph [0015]) and a cover 103 (denoted “cinch strap”, see e.g. paragraph [0015]) connected to the strap 102, wherein the cover 103 is made of a material softer than the member 101 (i.e. lens hood, see e.g. paragraph [0016] and note the flexibility of element 103 in Figure 7), and is configured to be attachable to the cylinder (i.e. of member 101, see e.g. Figures 3, 7).
Given the teachings of Seaton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al., with a strap connected to the mobile terminal cover, and a cover connected to the strap, wherein the cover is made of a material softer than the member, and is configured to be attachable to the cylinder.
Providing the strap allows the light shielding member to be easily attached to a device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘659 (KR 101661659) in view of Ng et al. (US 2006/0126326 A1) and further in view of Kim (KR-101626842).
In regard to claim 4, KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a mechanism for fitting a close-up macro lens so as to cover the lens of the camera.
However, Kim discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
a mechanism (i.e. slide mechanism, see e.g. page 3, first-fourth paragraphs of English translation) for fitting a close-up macro lens 21 (see e.g. page 3, first paragraph) so as to cover the lens of the camera (see e.g. page 3, second paragraph).
Given the teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of KR ‘659, in view of Ng et al., with a mechanism for fitting a close-up macro lens so as to cover the lens of the camera.
Providing a macro lens fitting to the device would allow an object located close to the subject to be enlarged and photographed (see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of English translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights