DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-6, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backus (US 2022/0345560) in view of Haber et al. (US 10,624,443).
Regarding Claim 1, Backus discloses a grip for coupling to a portable handheld device (A grip 100 and connector for portable electronics, para. [0040]), the grip comprising: a base (A base frame 140, para. [0056]); a cap assembly (A cap 110, para. [0056]); and a magnet assembly coupled to the base (Magnets 135 are installed into the frame 140, para. [0065]); wherein the magnet assembly is coated with a non- conductive material (Magnets 135 are encapsulated by a plastic trim 105 ultrasonically welded to frame 140, para. [0054], figure 16), and wherein the non-conductive material is configured to reduce power loss associated with the magnet assembly when the grip is attached to the portable handheld device during wireless charging (The grip 100 can be attached to a phone 200 during wireless charging. The ring arrangement of the magnets 135, which is facilitated by the shape of plastic trim 105, reduces magnetic interference for improved wireless charging; para. [0015], [0049], [0065], figures 9,16, 23). Backus further teaches one or more bearings connecting the base and the cap assembly (Cap 110 includes a pivot edge that engages with slots 142 forming a hinged connection to base frame 140, para. [0060], figures 17A).
Backus fails to explicitly disclose that the bearing connecting the base and the cap assembly is a flexure bearing. Haber is in the field of a grip for a portable handheld device (abstract) and teaches one or more flexure bearings (connecting member 40 is sufficiently resilient, col. 12, lines 4-8, Figs. 3-5 and 7) connecting the base (20, Fig. 7) and the cap assembly (30, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the priority date to modify Backus to include a flexure bearing as taught by Haber. The motivation would have been to provide a more resilient connection between the cap assembly and the base to avoid breaking the hinge of Backus.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly has a magnetic strength configured to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger when the grip is attached to the portable handheld device during wireless charging (Grip 100 including magnets 135 may be attached to the phone 200 during wireless charging, para. [0049]; The magnets 135 are powerful enough to suspend a smartphone on a flat magnetic steel surface of varying smoothness, para. [0052]; It is inherent that the attractive force produced by magnets 135 could be used to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly has a thickness configured to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger when the grip is attached to the portable handheld device during wireless charging (Grip 100 including magnets 135 may be attached to the phone 200 during wireless charging, para. [0049]; The magnets 135 are powerful enough to suspend a smartphone on a flat magnetic steel surface of varying smoothness. This is accomplished by using a specific grade and thickness of magnet 135, para. [0052]; It is inherent that the attractive force produced by magnets 135 could be used to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly is configured to magnetically couple to the portable handheld device (A ferromagnetic ring 145 is adhered to a phone 200 to allow the magnets 135 to magnetically couple to the phone 200, para. [0040], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly is configured to magnetically couple to a wireless charger in proximity to the portable handheld device for wireless charging the portable handheld device (The magnets 135 within the grip 100 may provide a force sufficient to mount a cell phone to a charger and allow for wireless charging, para. [0043-0044]; Magnets 135 may correspond to the Apple MagSafe magnetic standard, para. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the non-conductive material comprises one or more of a polymer-based material, a ceramic, or a rubber (Trim 105 is made of plastic, para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly comprises a plurality of magnet segments (Magnets 135 may take the form of an array of are magnets arranged in a ring, para. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly is grade N48, N52, N54H, N54M, N45, or N45SH (Magnets 135 may be N52 grade neodymium magnets, para. [0053]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly
comprises one or more of a neodymium magnet, a ferrite magnet, or a samarium cobalt magnet (Magnets 135 may be N52 grade neodymium magnets, para. [0053]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backus (US 2022/0345560) in view of Haber et al. (US 10,624,443), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0085231).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1. Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the non-conductive material comprises one or more of epoxy, parylene, or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). However, Liu is in the field of electronic devices (abstract) and teaches wherein the non-conductive material comprises one or more of epoxy, parylene, or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (The permanent magnet 322 is coated or covered with a coating such as an epoxy coating, para. [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the non-conductive material of Backus to include epoxy as taught by Liu. The motivation would have been for the material to simultaneously act as a coating and an adhesive to hold the pieces together.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backus in view of Haber, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2015/0380139).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, wherein the magnet assembly comprises a first loop of magnets (Magnets 135 are arranged in a ring, para. [0047], figures 9, 18). Backus further discloses a magnetizable loop (Steel ring 145). Backus fails to explicitly disclose a second loop of magnets. However, Hsu is in the field of supports coupled to electronics (abstract) and teaches a second loop of magnets (A first magnetic unit 1 and a second magnetic unit 2, forming a first and second magnetic ring, para. [0029], figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to replace the magnetizable ring of Backus with a second loop of magnets as taught by Hsu. The motivation would have been to allow the grip to be more easily removed from the electronic device by rotating the magnetic loops with respect to each other to alter the alignment of their poles.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 9, wherein the first loop of magnets comprises a plurality of magnet segments (Magnets 135 may take the form of an array of magnets arranged in a ring, para. [0047]). Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second loop of magnets comprises a plurality of magnet segments. However, Hsu is in the field of supports coupled to electronics (abstract) and teaches wherein the second loop of magnets comprises a plurality of magnet segments (Second magnetic unit 2 is a multipole magnet, para. [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to replace the magnetizable ring of Backus with a second loop made up of a plurality of magnet segments as taught by Hsu. The motivation would have been to allow the grip to be more easily removed from the electronic device by rotating the magnetic loops with respect to each other to alter the alignment of their poles.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 9. Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first loop of magnets and the second loop of magnets are separated by a spacer. However, Hsu is in the field of supports coupled to electronics (abstract) and teaches wherein the first loop of magnets and the second loop of magnets are separated by a spacer (Ring shaped magnetic units 1, 2 are separated by the surface of housing 3, para. [0029], figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Backus to include wherein the first loop of magnets and the second loop of magnets are separated by a spacer as taught by Hsu. The motivation would have been to allow the magnetic rings to be separated.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 11. Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spacer comprises a non-conductive or non-magnetic material. However, Hsu is in the field of supports coupled to electronics (abstract) and teaches wherein the spacer comprises a non-conductive or non-magnetic material (Housing 3 may be plastic or rubber, para. [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Backus to include a non-conductive or non-magnetic spacer as taught by Hsu. The motivation would have been to allow the magnetic rings to be separated.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1, further comprising: a frame coupled to the base and configured to be attached to the portable handheld device (A steel ring 145 may be attached to a cell phone 200 with adhesive and can be coupled to base frame 140, para. [0040], [0065], figure 19). Backus further teaches wherein the magnet assembly is received by the frame (Magnets 135 magnetically couple to steel ring 145, para. [0052]). Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnet assembly is received in the frame. However, Hsu is in the field of supports coupled to electronics (abstract) and teaches wherein the magnet assembly is received in the frame (A first magnetic assembly 1 is held within a housing 3 attachable to an electronic device, para. [0029-0030], figures 1,10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the magnet assembly of Backus to be received in the frame as taught by Hsu. The motivation would have been to allow the electronic device to me magnetically mounted to a surface with or without the grip 100.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 16, wherein the base is rotatable relative to the frame (The plastic grip portion 102 including base frame 140 rotates relative to the adhered ring 145, para. [0051], figure 9).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 16, wherein the frame has a thickness configured to maintain inductive coupling between the portable handheld device and a wireless charger when the grip is attached to the portable handheld device during wireless charging (The ring 145 may have a thickness of 0.4 millimeters and may be sized and shaped to allow for improved charging and to conform to Apple MagSafe specifications, para. [0016]; The ring 145 is sized to allow wireless charging with the grip 100 attached to the phone 200, para. [0049]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 16, wherein the cap assembly is configured to be movable relative to the base to a non-captured position in which the cap assembly is spaced from the base, and a captured position in which the cap assembly contacts the base (Cap 110 is movable with respect to base frame 140 between a position that is spaced from the base frame 140 by 90° to a position in which the cap 110 lies against the surface of the base frame 140, para. [0060], figures 17A, 17B).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 19. Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein when in the captured position, the cap assembly is substantially flush with the frame
However, Hsu is in the field of supports coupled to electronics (abstract) and teaches wherein when in
the captured position, the cap assembly is substantially flush with the frame (In an assembled position, an upper surface of protruding block 41 is nearly flush with the bottom surface of magnetic ring assembly 1, which is attached to an electronic device, para. [0049], figures 4, 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify Backus to include wherein when in the captured position, the cap assembly is substantially flush with the frame as taught by Hsu. The motivation would have been to reduce the size of the grip in a captured position.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backus in view of Haber, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tankaka (US 5,788,493).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Backus discloses the grip of Claim 1. Backus fails to explicitly disclose wherein the non-conductive material has a coating layer thickness in a range from 0.01 mm to 0.02 mm. However, Tanaka is in the field of magnetic mounts (abstract) and teaches wherein the non-conductive material has a coating layer thickness in a range from 0.01 mm to 0.02 mm (A magnet may be coated with resin to prevent corrosion. The thickness of the coating may be between 10 and 40 micrometers, column 5, lines 55-58; In an example, a permanent magnet was coated with 20 micrometers of epoxy, column 8, lines 32-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the non-conductive material of Backus to have a thickness in a range from 0.01 mm to 0.02 mm as taught by Tanaka. The motivation would have been to prevent corrosion without impeding the attractive force of the magnet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734