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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 recites the limitation “no bigger than a bounding box…” (examiner’s emphasis). This should read “no larger than a bounding box,” which is consistent with the language provided in paragraph [0033] of the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and are therefore objected for at least the same reasons.
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.
Claim 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0059370 to Del Toro et al. (“Ref. 1” hereinafter). Referring to claim 11, Ref. 1 discloses a protective case (102, Figs. 1-5) for a mobile device (see the Title) comprising:
a housing (not numbered) defining a recess (Figs. 1 and 7) to receive the mobile device (see para. [0015]), the housing further defining a concave recess on a backside of the housing (see Figs. 1 and 2), the backside having a thickness (see Fig. 5); and
a resilient member (108, see para. [0020]), coupled to reside within the thickness, a portion of the resilient member (108) exposed above the concave recess when no force is applied (see Fig. 1);
wherein, in use, the resilient member (108) engages at least one finger (i.e., “finger loop,” Fig. 3) of a user to a grip required to hold the mobile device and when not in use is collapsible within the concave recess responsive to a force (see para. [0027]). Although Ref. 1 does not expressly disclose the force being less than a lesser of a force caused by a weight of the device under the influence of gravity or magnetic force of attraction of a wireless charger, the Examiner takes Official Notice that that it is well-known in the art of protective case devices to choose a specific force or range of forces needed to open or collapse a stand for a protective device. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the resilient member of Reg. 1 as claimed, in order to collapse or close the stand with less effort.
Referring to claim 17, Ref. 1 as modified discloses the protective case as claimed, wherein the resilient member (108) is a finger loop and wherein the housing defines a track for a finger loop. See Fig. 6.
Referring to claim 18, Ref. 1 as modified discloses the protective case as claimed, wherein the housing comprises: an upper stop (i.e., upper portion of track 114) that constrains motion of a top portion of the finger loop to a first range; and a lower stop (i.e., lower portion of track 114) that constrains motion of a bottom portion of the finger loop to a second range. See Fig. 6.
Referring to claim 19, Ref. 1 as modified discloses the protective case as claimed, further comprising: a spacer (track guide 116) for insertion into the track to change one of the first range and the second range. See Fig. 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: pending applicant’s correction to objected claim 1, the specific limitations of “a bounding box required to contain a lens assembly and the lens adjacent portion of the housing with the kickstand in stowed configuration is no bigger (examiner’s emphasis) than a bounding box required to contain the lens assembly and lens adjacent portion with no kickstand present,” in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested in the prior art of record. Claims 2-10 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 12, the specific limitations of “wherein the resilient member comprises: one or more fins that extend above the concave recess when no force is applied,” in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested in the prior art of record. Claims 13 and 14 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 12 and are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the specific limitations of “wherein the resilient member comprises: an upper region a lower region and an intermediate region wherein the intermediate region has a thickness less than a thickness of the upper region or the lower region,” in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested in the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, the specific limitations of “wherein the resilient member comprises: an upper region a lower region and an intermediate region wherein the intermediate region overlies the concave recess and both the upper region and the lower region move relative to the housing to permit the resilient member to transition to a deployed configuration,” in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY Q EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/Anthony Q Edwards/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights