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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, Line 3 and Claim 7, Line 3, the digit “1” should be removed from the recitation of “screen protector positioning box 1”.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a bracket” in Line 1 and Line 5. It is unclear whether these limitations refer to the same or different brackets. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the brackets are the same and the second recitation in Line 5 should read “the bracket”.
Claims 5-7 recite the limitation “the screen protector applicator positioning box”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a screen protector applicator positioning box” was not previously recited (Examiner notes prior recitations in the claims appear to refer to “the screen protector positioning box). For examination purposes, the limitations will be interpreted as “the screen protector positioning box”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the handle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a handle” was not previously recited in Claim 6 or Claim 1 (Examiner notes “a handle” is recited in Claim 2. However, Claims 6 and 7 are identical except for their dependency and Claim 6 cannot depend on Claim 2 because Claim 7 depends on Claim 2). For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “a handle provided at the end of the bracket”.
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
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 1-10 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, and
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).
Wei 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),
a handle is provided at an end of the bracket (Fig. 2- see handle provided on the end 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 applicator 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 Claims 6 and 7, Wei further teaches a plurality of first top blocks are further provided on the side of the screen protector applicator positioning box (Fig. 2- protruding portions shown on positioning framework 4), and
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).
Regarding Claim 8, Wei further 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; 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 away 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.
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
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 3/13/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748