DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first part including an outwardly projecting prong (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-13 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 11 recites “a plurality of undercuts” which conflicts with the Drawings which shows a single undercut. Claim 12 depends from claim 11.
Claim 13 recites “wherein another one of the accessories…” lacks proper antecedent basis in claim 8, but will be construed to depend from claim 11.
All claims are further rejected for being unclear, as they recite a system. The only recitation drawn to the protective holder is the “plurality of undercuts”. All recitations drawn to interchangeable “accessories” are intended use of the undercuts. It is further noted that amendments to define a system will be withdrawn by original presentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harwell (US 2003/0196362).
Harwell discloses a protective holder for an item comprising: a rear shell 13 including a rearward depression 19 that defines a rim 25 on the rear side of the rear side of the rear shell proximate a peripheral edge 23, the shell being non-opaque; a front shell 15 having a forward protrusion that defines a lip 30 proximate a peripheral edge of the front shell, the front shell 15 being non-opaque; the front shell and rear shell form an interior space 33 therebetween for holding the item; the (inside) peripheral edge of the rear shell 13 forms a first part of a two-part mechanical fastening system and the (outside) peripheral edge of the front shell 15 forms a second part of a two-part mechanical fastening system, such that they form an engaged configuration (Fig. 2) [the front and rear shell may be secured by “adhesive or by press fitting”, particularly where press-fitting involves a two part mechanical fastening via friction (0038)]; Lastly, the protective holder is configured such that multiple holders can be stacked, with the forward protrusion (forming lip 30) of a first holder engages the rearward depression 19 (Fig. 2).
In respect to claims 11-13, the claims are impossible to ascertain for the reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 above. As best can be determined, Harwell discloses features which may be construed as the vague “undercuts”.
In respect to claim 14, Harwell discloses that the rear shell 13 and front shell 15 are rectangular in construction (Fig. 3); since the friction fit is around the entire perimeter, it is also along the lower peripheral edge of each of the rear and front shells; the rear shell having an open volume around the corners of the interior space for inhibiting contact of the rear shell with the corners of the item (Figs. 3-4).
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2021/0022467) in view of Taylor (US 2022/0415211).
In respect to claim 1, Cox discloses a protective holder for an item comprising: a rear shell 110 which is non-opaque; a front shell 120 which is non-opaque; the front shell and rear shell form an interior space therebetween for holding the item 130 (Fig. 1); the peripheral edge of the rear shell 110 forms a first part of a two-part mechanical fastening system (apertures) (Fig. 4) and the peripheral edge of the front shell 100 forms a second part of a two-part mechanical fastening system (prongs 180) (Fig. 3), such that they form an engaged configuration (Fig. 1).
Cox does not disclose a rearward depression defining a rim on the rear shell and a forward protrusion defining a lip on the front shell, however, Taylor teaches a similar protective holder for an item, wherein one of the shells includes a protrusion defining a lip 28 and the other includes a depression defining a rim 26, such that two adjacent protective holders can be stacked (Abstract; Fig. 6).
It is noted that the Drawings show the front shell having the depression and the rear shell having the protrusion, rather than vice versa, however, the invention is not limited to this, so long as one depression and one protrusion is on one of the shells (Abstract; 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the present application to provide the front and rear shells of the protective holder taught in Cox with a protrusion and a depression, respectively, in view of Taylor to allow a plurality of protective holders to form a stacked configuration (Abstract).
In respect to claim 2, Cox further discloses: that the front and rear shells are both rectangular in shape (Fig. 1); the first part of the two-part mechanical fastening system being disposed on a lower peripheral edge of the rear shell and the second part of the two-part mechanical fastening system being disposed on a lower peripheral edge of the front shell (Figs. 3-4); the rear shell having a first part 150 of a two-part magnetic latch fixed with an upper peripheral edge and the front shell having a second part 140 of the two-part magnetic latch fixed with an upper peripheral edge (Fig. 1) whereby when in an engaged configuration they urge the shells together to maintain an engaged configuration and allowing separation thereof (0016; Fig. 2).
In respect to claims 3 and 4, Cox further discloses that both of the first and second parts of the two-part magnetic latch may be opposing magnets, thus, a magnet and a “magnetically-attractive material”.
In respect to claims 5 and 6, Cox further discloses that the first part of the two-part mechanical fastening system including at least one aperture (Fig. 4) and the second part of the two-part mechanical fastening system including at least one projecting prong 180 (Fig. 3). Although Cox does not disclose the vice-versa configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the present application to switch the position of the prong/aperture. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, the location of the prong/aperture between two hinges shells is immaterial to the operation. Furthermore, there is no specificity or unexpected result from either configuration by the applicant, since both configurations are claimed.
In respect to claim 7, Cox further discloses that the rear shell 110 including a forward depression 190 which is sized to receive the item (Fig. 4); the “backing sheet” is claimed as an intended use/configuration, which the structure is capable of executing.
In respect to claims 11-13, the claims are impossible to ascertain for the reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 above. As best can be determined, Cox in view of Taylor disclose features which may be construed as the vague “undercuts”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claim 15 is allowed.
In both dependent claim 8 and independent claim 15, none of the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious all of the claimed subject matter, particularly all of the additional features of the front frame. A front frame or “bezel” is well known in similar prior art such as Newman (US 2023/0061550), Williams (US 2023/0127622), Newman (US 2024/0346955), and Inventor (KR 2013-0000883), however none would be obvious modifications. Particularly, there is no teaching of the “lip of the front shell engaging the rear side of the frame, the front side of the frame being flush with the forward protrusion of the front side of the front shell”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637