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 § 102
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 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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20140077669 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a case for a tablet shaped device (Choi, Fig. 1), the case comprising: a body (Choi, Fig. 1) comprising a face having a tablet shaped device receiving area (Choi, Fig. 1); and a stylus holder at a margin of the face (Choi, Fig. 1) for holding a stylus for the tablet shaped device (Choi, Fig. 4), the stylus holder defining an elongate cavity for receiving the stylus (Choi, Fig. 4) and comprising at least one obstructing element arranged to obstruct removal of the stylus from the elongate cavity when so received (bending hooks 130 provided in the stylus pen accommodating groove 1210 securely engage the outer surface of the stylus pen 200 (Choi, Fig. 3 and Par. 37)).
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20140077669 A1) in view of Ceruzzi (US 20150343831 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches previous claim. Choi further teaches the case for a tablet shaped device defined by claim 1 wherein the at least one obstructing element is attached to an elongate cavity wall that is outwardly bendable (bending hooks 130 (obstructing element) is coupled (attached) to perpendicular wall 122 of the seating member 120 (elongate cavity wall) (Choi, Figs. 2-3 and Pars. 32-34), wherein when the user applies a predetermined force to the stylus pen 200 to remove it from the groove 1210, the bending hooks 130 have a certain amount of elasticity widens enough or project slightly outward (i.e., outwardly bendable) to allow the stylus pen 200 to be separated therefrom (Choi, Figs. 2-3 and Pars. 33, 35)).
The elastic (i.e., flexible) material as taught above by Choi is known as bendable/flexible and resilient as evidence by Ceruzzi (Par. 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Ceruzzi into Choi to naturally return to their normal configurations.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20140077669 A1) in view of Ceruzzi (US 20150343831 A1) and in further view of Moriconi et al. (US 5530208 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Choi and Ceruzzi teaches previous claim. The combination Further teaches the case defined by claim 2 wherein a discontinuity in the elongate cavity wall (Choi, Fig. 1) (Choi, Par. 33, the user applies a predetermined force to the stylus pen 200 to remove it from the groove 1210).
However, the combination fails to mention “the user applies a predetermined force to the stylus pen 200 to remove it from the groove 1210” as taught above is by provides finger access to the stylus.
Moriconi teach an access notch 130 which extends to recession/receptacle 120 (elongate cavity wall) to allow a user to easily grasp pen 200 from receptacle 120 by placing a finger in the cutout (Moriconi, Fig. 1 and Col. 2 Lines 35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught Moriconi into the combination of Choi and Ceruzzi to remove the stylus from the stylus holder using finger.
Regarding claims 4-5, method of claims 4-5 are performed by the apparatus of claims 1-4. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claims 1-4 (apparatus) for the method of claims 4-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rumfola et al. US 20140190842 A1
Griffin et al. US 20170063419 A1
Zaloom US 20140347814 A1
Shawver. US 5996956 A
Medeiros US 10806227 B1
Pittel et al. US 20100021022 A1
Barel US 20170108949 A1
Richardson et al. US 20050030707 A1
Steiner (US 6626362 B1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights