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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the usage of the limit blocks in the instant application is different from the usage of the limit blocks in Wei.
In response to applicant's argument that the usage of the limit blocks in the instant application is different from the usage of the limit blocks in Wei, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues Wei does not include second top blocks on both the positioning frame and the inner wall of the bracket.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion noting Wei teaches the positioning frame and an inner wall of the bracket are both provided with a second top block (Figs. 2, 4- top protruding portion shown on positioning framework 4 (positioning frame second top block); protruding portion of support rod 2 (bracket inner wall top block), the second top block on the positioning frame and the positioning frame are integrated (See Figs. showing integrated parts), the second top block on the bracket and the bracket are integrated (See Figs. showing integrated parts).
Applicant further argues Wei does not teach a screen protector pulling groove.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion noting Wei teaches a screen protector pulling groove is provided at an end of the positioning frame (Fig. 3, 4- showing opening to pull screen protector).
Applicant argues the present application claims a single support plate and neither Wei nor Song disclose a support plate that is movably arranged on one side of a screen protector positioning box for selective deployment and retraction.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
While Examiner agrees that Wei does not teach a movably arranged support plate, Examiner notes Wei teach the claimed positioning of the support plate itself (as in the support plate is arranged on the other side (opposite side of the positioning hole 6) of the screen protector positioning box (Figs. 1, 2- phone holder platform 3) (emphasis added) and Song is relied on to teach a movable support (Fig. 1- support members 20) in order to reduce the size of the overall device making it more convenient to store, carry, and use [n0011].
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 Wei to include a movably arranged support member as taught by Song with reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size of the overall device making it more convenient to store, carry, and use [n0011].
Thus, the combination of Wei and Song meets the instant limitation of a support plate that is movably arranged on one side of a screen protector positioning box.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN218537233 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Song (CN212745830 with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Wei teaches a screen protector applicator with a bracket ([0001]; Figs. 1, 2- support rod 2), comprising:
a screen protector positioning box (Figs. 1, 2- support body 1),
wherein a positioning frame is arranged on one side of the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 2- positioning framework 4), and the positioning frame and the screen protector positioning box are integrated (Fig. 2- see integrated positioning framework 4 on support body 1),
a positioning strip is arranged on the side of the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 2- positioning hole 6),
a support plate is arranged on the other side of the screen protector positioning box (Figs. 1, 2- phone holder platform 3),
the bracket is movably arranged on the positioning frame (Figs, 1,2- support rod 2 movably arranged,
a mounting groove is further arranged on a side of the bracket close to the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 1- support rod positioning column 7),
a handle is provided at an end of the bracket (Fig. 2- see handle provided on the end of support rod 2),
a limit block is provided at a position of the screen protector positioning box close to the handle (Figs 2,4- tapered end of positioning framework 4 preventing lateral movement of support rod 2),
the positioning frame and an inner wall of the bracket are both provided with a second top block (Figs. 2, 4- top protruding portion shown on positioning framework 4; protruding portion of support rod 2), the second top block on the positioning frame and the positioning frame are integrated (See Figs. showing integrated parts), the second top block on the bracket and the bracket are integrated (See Figs. showing integrated parts),
a screen protector pulling groove is provided at an end of the positioning frame (Fig. 3, 4- showing opening to pull screen protector).
Wei does not specify the screen protector pulling groove is provided at an end of the positioning frame from the bracket. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the placement of the screen protector pulling groove to the end of the positioning frame from the bracket because the court has held that if shifting a position of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, it would be an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Wei also does not specify a plurality of limit blocks. However, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Since no new and unexpected result has been demonstrated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of limit blocks in order to prevent lateral movement of support rod (Fig. 2, 4).
Wei also does not specify the support plate is movably arranged on the other side of the screen protector positioning box.
Song teaches an alternative device for supporting a mobile device [0001]-[0003] wherein the support member is movably arranged (Fig. 1- support members 20) in order to reduce the size of the overall device making it more convenient to store, carry, and use [n0011].
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 Wei to include a movably arranged support member as taught by Song with reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size of the overall device making it more convenient to store, carry, and use [n0011].
Regarding Claim 2, Wei further teaches the bracket is U-shaped (Figs.- see U-shape of support rod 2),
the bracket is bolted to the positioning frame (Fig. 2- showing attachment of support rod 2), the handle and the bracket are integrated (Fig. 2- see integrated handle and support rod 2), and
an opening is provided at a position of the handle close to the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 3- see opening on support rod 2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Wei further teaches a positioning buckle groove is provided on an outer wall of each of two sides of the bracket (Fig. 1, 2- tapered portion of support rod 2 that rests within positioning framework 4), and
a positioning buckle is provided on the side of the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 1, 2- tapered portion of positioning framework 4 that receives the tapered portion of support rod 2), an end of the positioning buckle is buckled into the positioning buckle groove (Fig. 3- showing tapered portion of support rod 2 buckled into tapered portion of positioning framework 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Wei further teaches the positioning strip arranged on the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 2- positioning hole 6 on support body 1), the positioning strip and the screen protector positioning box are integrated (Fig. 2- positioning hole 6 on support body 1), and the positioning strip is grooved joint in the mounting groove (Fig. 2- positioning hole 6 convexly formed on support body 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wei further teaches a plurality of first top blocks are further provided on the side of the screen protector positioning box (Fig. 2- protruding portions shown on positioning framework 4)
Regarding Claim 9, Song further teaches the support member is embedded in the device (Fig. 1- support members 20), and an end of the support member is hinged on the device (Fig. 1- showing hinged support members 20), a maximum movable angle of the support plate is 90° (Fig. 1- see angle of support members 20 relative the framework) thus meeting the instant limitation of the support plate is embedded in the screen protector positioning box, and an end of the support plate is hinged on the screen protector positioning box, a maximum movable angle of the support plate is 90°.
Regarding Claim 10, Wei further teaches an end of the bracket connected with the positioning frame is designed with a chamfered angle and is smoothed (Figs.- see chambered smoothed end of support rod 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 8/18/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights