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: in claims 1, 4, and 7, “silicon” should be “silicone”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not disclose a spring-loaded mechanism as recited in claim 1, the wrist strap being adjustable as recited in claim 1, a locking mechanism as recited in claim 6 and/or the snap being designed to lock into various positions, the button mechanism allows for single- handed detachment and reattachment of the phone case and mobile phone together.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “silicon” should be “silicone” wherever it appears, as this is clearly a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 spring-loaded mechanism and “snap strap” (for clarity, a “snap strap” is a heavy-duty strap used in off-road vehicle recovery, often called a snatch strap, a tie-down/ratchet strap that features a snap hook at the ends instead of standard wire hooks) (to the best of Examiner’s understanding, this phrase appears meant to instead refer to a “snap bracelet”), the snap being designed to lock into various positions as recited in claim 3, a locking mechanism as recited in 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claim 1
The specification does not provide detail as to how the structure is a “snap strap” within the ordinary meaning of that term, and also does not disclose a “spring-loaded mechanism”, and so this subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claims 3 and 6
Although the specification generally states that the snap can lock into various positions, no detail is provided as to what structure accomplishes this function, and the specification does not disclose a locking mechanism. As such, this subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claims 2-8
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its failure to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-8 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.
With Respect to Claim 1
It recites the limitation "the covering". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase “the wrist strap further comprising a spring-loaded mechanism that ensures a secure fit around the wrist”. To the best of Examiner’s understanding, the invention appears to comprise a slap bracelet with a metal bistable spring, which is not a “spring-loaded mechanism” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “snap strap” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a slap bracelet” (to the best of Examiner’s understanding of the invention) while the accepted meaning is “a heavy-duty strap used in off-road vehicle recovery, often called a snatch strap, a tie-down/ratchet strap that features a snap hook at the ends instead of standard wire hooks.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The phrase “wherein the integration of the socket part of the button mechanism into the phone case differentiates the present invention from existing solutions” is improper and indefinite.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 3
This claim also uses the phrase “snap strap”, see the rejection of claim 1 above for the issues with this term.
With Respect to Claim 8
claim 1 already recites “wherein the socket part is integrated into the phone case”, and so claim 8’s “wherein the socket part of the button mechanism is integrated into the phone case” is redundant, and it is unclear how to accord it any meaning that could further limit the claim.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 2-8
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
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 (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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/049453 to Spiga (Spiga), or alternately under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/049453 to Spiga (Spiga) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0300141 to Byrne (Byrne) and/or U.S. Patent #2020/0022487 to Weeks (Weeks).
With Respect to Claim 1
Spiga discloses a phone mounting device, comprising: a phone case (30) configured to securely hold a mobile phone, the phone case comprising a socket part (31) of a button mechanism (noting opening of 31 receives 4/6 which protrudes from 1 and forms a button mechanism to the extent claimed), wherein the socket part is integrated into the phone case (see, e.g. FIG. 16a/b) and designed to securely engage with a stud part (4/6) of the button mechanism on the wrist strap (securely engages at least via magnetism); a wrist strap (2) attached to the phone case, wherein the wrist strap comprises a metal snap strap (it is a metallic bistable spring coated with silicone to form a snap/slap bracelet, which appears to be the intent of this phrase, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details) covered with a layer of silicon or other skin friendly material (silicone is disclosed), and further comprises the stud part (4/6 constitute a stud to the extent claimed) of the button mechanism; the button mechanism enabling quick detachment and reattachment of the phone case and mobile phone together from the wrist strap, wherein the socket part of the button on the phone case cooperates with the stud part on the wrist strap to form a secure and easily detachable connection (at least via the magnet); the wrist strap being adjustable to fit securely around a user's wrist (adjustable via adjusting between the flat and wrist surrounding position and/or by adjusting the area of the opening within the bistable spring by bending it, and/or noting the disclosure that the strap may be adjusted to make it suitable for a person’s wrist and also fingers), with the covering material providing durability, comfort, and a non-slip surface (inherent as it is silicone and will perform these functions); the wrist strap further comprising a spring-loaded mechanism that ensures a secure fit around the wrist (noting bistable spring which is a “spring-loaded mechanism” within the indefinite meaning of the phrase used for this application, see the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above for details); wherein the mobile phone remains securely in the phone case during use and is not required to be removed from the phone case when engaging or detaching the phone case and mobile phone from the wrist strap (capable of this use).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that the structure of Spiga is a button mechanism to the extent claimed, Byrne discloses rotatably attaching a similar case to a similar user attached strap using a button mechanism (16/24) comprising a female button snap (16) on one part and a male button snap (24) on the other (see e.g. FIGS. 2 and [0022], [0025-0027]); Weeks discloses that snaps (it is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider this to mean or to include common snap button fasteners similar to those of Byrne) are an art known substitute for a magnetic connection to rotatably secure an object to a wrist strap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Byrne and/or Weeks, to replace the magnetic connector of Spiga with a snap/button fastener as taught by Byrne (or as to Weeks alone as is commonly known in the art), for the art known benefits of this type of connection and/or as a mere substitution of one art known fastening mechanism for another.
For clarity as to the combination, although Byrne discloses the female snap fastener on the band and the male fastener on the case, this is disclosed as one option, and it would have been obvious as part of the combination to locate the socket on the case and the male portion on the strap, particularly based on Spiga’s disclosure of its socket/seat on the case and protrusion on the strap, as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for these parts and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). It is Examiner’s position that integrally forming the female snap button with the case is obvious as part of the combination based on Spiga’s disclosure of the female seat (31) integrated as part of the case and/or based on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as doing so constitutes at most merely making integral which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 2
The phone mounting device of claim 1, wherein the integration of the socket part of the button mechanism into the phone case differentiates the present invention from existing solutions by allowing a seamless, secure connection between the phone case and the wrist strap, without requiring the removal of the mobile phone from the phone case (the integrated seat 31 per Spiga is a seamless secure connection, or alternately the snap of the combination(s) with Byrne and/or Weeks will similarly form a seamless secure connection).
With Respect to Claim 4
The phone mounting device of claim 1, wherein the silicon or other material covering the wrist strap is resistant to wear, tear, and environmental conditions (inherent in silicone or to the degree some other construction might be possible, clearly obvious as this is common for silicone).
With Respect to Claim 5
The phone mounting device of claim 1, wherein the button mechanism allows for single- handed detachment and reattachment of the phone case and mobile phone together.
With Respect to Claim 7
The phone mounting device of claim 1, wherein the material covering the metal snap strap is selected from a group consisting of silicon, rubber, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), and other soft-touch materials (silicone is disclosed).
With Respect to Claim 8
The phone mounting device of claim 1, wherein the socket part of the button mechanism is integrated into the phone case, and the stud part of the button mechanism is integrated into the wrist strap (integral as Spiga shows it as such, or to the degree some other interpretation/construction might be possible, clearly obvious as doing so constitutes at most merely making integral which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)), enabling secure and easy attachment of the phone case and mobile phone to the wrist strap.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/049453 to Spiga (Spiga), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0300141 to Byrne (Byrne) and/or U.S. Patent #2020/0022487 to Weeks (Weeks) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,278,107 to Pierson (Pierson).
With Respect to Claim 3
The phone mounting device of claim 1, wherein the metal based snap strap is designed to rotate into various positions, allowing the phone case and mobile phone to rest horizontally or vertically on a surface (capable of this use); but does not disclose that it is designed to lock into various positions.
However, Pierson discloses forming a similar bistable spring strap for attachment to a user including a rotatable attachment to a phone case wherein the strap is designed to rotate and lock into various positions (see, e.g. contacts 206 to engage detents 1802 or magnets 1902 to engage magnets 2202 to allow it to be rotated in a stepwise manner), allowing the phone case and mobile phone to rest horizontally or vertically on a surface (capable of this use which is also the stated intended use, see e.g. Col. 8 lines 42 – Col. 9 lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Pierson, to add a locking mechanism (e.g. contacts and detents or magnets) to secure the phone case in multiple particular desired positions, in order to hold the phone case in that position to prevent undesired movement, and/or to allow the phone case and mobile phone to rest horizontally or vertically on a surface as taught by Pierson.
With Respect to Claim 6
The phone mounting device of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism (e.g. contacts/detents or magnets per Pierson) that secures the phone case and mobile phone at an adjustable angle for stable horizontal or vertical viewing on a surface without the need for a separate stand (although not explicitly stated, it is Examiner’s position that phones and other electronic devices commonly have horizontal and vertical viewing orientations, e.g. portrait or landscape, and having the rotatable structure lock into these viewing orientations is clearly obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate orientation/angle or at most a mere substitution of one art known angle for another if other angles were selected as the base stop position instead).
With Respect to Claim 9
The combination discloses a method for using a phone mounting device, comprising: securing a mobile phone in a phone case (per Spiga) with the socket part of a button mechanism integrated into the phone case (per Spiga alone or in view of Byrne and/or Weeks); attaching a wrist strap with the stud part of the button mechanism to the phone case (per Spiga, or stud per Byrne and/or Weeks), wherein the stud part engages with the socket part of the button to secure the phone case and mobile phone together to the wrist strap; adjusting the wrist strap to fit securely around the wrist of the user (per Spiga’s disclosure to have it fit the wrist, inherent or clearly obvious); using the button mechanism to detach and reattach the phone case and mobile phone together as required (it is Examiner’s position that magnetic attachment or snap fasteners are common detachable attachment mechanism and so detaching and later reattaching is clearly obvious; alternately Weeks discloses in e.g. [0005-0006] removing and attaching different interchangeable structures to the wrist strap which provides sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of removing it and also of reattaching it later to replace the other interchangeable structure); positioning the phone case and mobile phone on a surface for horizontal or vertical viewing without the need for additional accessories (per Pierson, noting that any position will be at least one of horizontal or vertical viewing and/or having a locked location for horizontal/vertical viewing is clearly obvious see the rejection of claim 6 above for details), and without removing the mobile phone from the phone case.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights