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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “an elastic pad (6)” in lines 1-2. An elastic pad is previously recited in the claims. Therefore it is unclear whether “an elastic pad (6)” recited in claim 9 is referring to the previously recited pad or introducing a new pad. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the elastic pad (6)” to refer to the previously recited pad.
Claim 9 recites “an elastic pad (6)” in line 1 An elastic pad is previously recited in the claims. Therefore it is unclear whether “an elastic pad (6)” recited in claim 15 is referring to the previously recited pad or introducing a new pad. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the elastic pad (6)” to refer to the previously recited pad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner notes that two new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have resulted from amendments to the claims, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously applied prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 13-14, and 16-20 are allowed.
The closest prior art reference is Zhang (US 2016/0059531), the teachings of which are detailed in the previous Office action. Applicant argues that Zhang fails to teach or fairly suggest a film sticking device comprising an elastic pad arranged at a side of a positioning box body and a positioning frame rotatably connected to the positioning box body and comprising an elastic portion which is positioned to face the elastic pad when the positioning frame is in a closed position covering a placement slot for receiving an electronic device. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. Also detailed in the previous Office action, Li (US 2024/0208194) teaches a resilient stage (14) which reads on the instantly claimed pad. However as of the date of this Notice of Allowability, the Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion in the prior art which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to also include an elastic portion on a positioning frame such that the elastic portion faces the elastic pad when the positioning frame is in a closed position.
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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights