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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the following informalities:
DRAWINGS
The drawings filed DECEMBER 20, 2024 (i.e., Fig. 1 - Fig. 7) [see Fig. 4 below], are objected because of the following reasons:
Identifying text for features of the invention appears to be unclearly written.
Geometrical features of the invention appears to be unclearly pictured.
Examiner suggests applicant to resubmit the drawing sheets with the required “Replacement Sheet” label to overcome the objection.
Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawing. Drawings submitted to the Office must be made on paper which is flexible, strong, white, smooth, non-shiny, and durable. All sheets must be reasonably free from cracks, creases, and folds. See MPEP 608.02 Drawing.
Appropriate correction required.
PNG
media_image1.png
824
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Altschul et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180184775A1) hereinafter ALTSCHUL.
Regarding claim 1, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 below) a universal device holder 100 comprising an elongated sleeve 102, 104 having a top open end 112, a bottom closed end 108, a first closed side 110, a second closed side 106 opposite the first closed side 110, and an adhesive backing 116 on a mounting surface (FIG. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
609
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
706
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
399
550
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
637
467
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
752
377
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
629
462
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
641
462
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
714
505
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 further comprising a security member 112 disposed towards the top open end 112 configured to secure a cylindrical device through compression or frictional fit (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 6, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein a back portion 118 of the sleeve 102, 104 extends above the top open end 112.
Regarding claim 7, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the adhesive backing 116 is configured to adhere to plastic or vinyl.
Regarding claim 8, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the adhesive backing 116 is configured to adhere to a flat surface.
Regarding claim 9, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the mounting surface (FIG. 4) comprises an extended perimeter A4-01 beyond at least two of the top open end 112, first closed side 110, second closed side 106, and bottom closed end 108, the extended perimeter A4-01 of the mounting surface (FIG. 4) configured to flex to mount to a curved surface.
Regarding claim 11, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the sleeve 102, 104 comprises a heat or oil resistant material.
Regarding claim 13, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the adhesive backing 116 is adhesive (page 15, claim 8, “... adhesive ...”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTSCHUL.
Regarding claim 2, ALTSCHUL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ALTSCHUL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the sleeve 102, 104 comprises a flexible material (page 15, claim 7, “... elastic sheet ...”) configured to stretch to accommodate a cuboid 700.
ALTSCHUL fails to teach flexible material (page 15, claim 7, “... elastic sheet ...”) configured to stretch to accommodate a cylindrical device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified form of sleeve 102, 104 [i.e., to being configured to stretch to accommodate a cylindrical device] in the universal device holder 100 of ALTSCHUL to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 3, ALTSCHUL (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ALTSCHUL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the sleeve 102, 104 comprises silicone and is configured to secure the cuboid 700 through a frictional fit (FIG. 6).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material for the sleeve 102, 104 (i. e., to comprise silicone) in the universal device holder 100 of ALTSCHUL to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, ALTSCHUL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ALTSCHUL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the elongated sleeve 102, 104 has a length A2-02 and width A2-01 configured to accommodate a vapor pen, EPIPEN, lip gloss, lipstick, or an inhaler.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified form of elongated sleeve 102, 104 [i.e., wherein length A2-02 / width A2-01 configured to accommodate a vapor pen, EPIPEN, lip gloss, lipstick, or an inhaler] in the universal device holder 100 of ALTSCHUL to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Regarding claim 14, ALTSCHUL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) a holder 100 for cuboid 700 comprising:
a sleeve 102, 104 having a length A2-02 and a width A2-01, the sleeve 102, 104 having an open top 112, a closed bottom 108, and closed sidewalls 106, 110, the length A2-02 sufficiently long enough to accommodate a major portion of the length A2-02 of the cuboid 700 and the width A2-01 only wide enough to receive the cuboid 700 in secure engagement, and a back A4-02 having an adhesive (page 15, claim 8, “... adhesive ...”) suitable for securely attaching the sleeve 102, 104 to a flat surface (FIG. 6).
ALTSCHUL fails to teach cuboid 700 is a cylindrical cosmetic container.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified form of length A2-02 / width A2-01 [i.e., to accommodate a cylindrical cosmetic container] in the sleeve 102, 104 of ALTSCHUL to meet design requirements since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTSCHUL, in view of DeChant (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20140262853A1) hereinafter DECHANT.
Regarding claim 5, ALTSCHUL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ALTSCHUL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 wherein the top open end 112 is secured by an additional flap extending from the top open end 112 configured to fold over the top open end 112 or tuck into the top open end 112.
However, DECHANT teaches (see FIG. 7 - FIG. 8 below) a wallet 200 wherein the top open end 260 is secured by an additional flap 220 extending from the top open end 260 configured to fold over the top open end 260 for securement purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified top open end 112 in the universal device holder 100 of ALTSCHUL with top open end 260 as taught in the wallet 200 of DECHANT for securement purposes.
PNG
media_image10.png
802
540
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
857
484
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTSCHUL, in view of Britton et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20100122439A1) hereinafter BRITTON.
Regarding claim 12, ALTSCHUL (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. ALTSCHUL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 7, FIG. 10 above) universal device holder 100 comprising an extended front surface A2-03 wherein having at least one additional pocket or elongated sleeve 102, 104.
However, BRITTON teaches (see Figure 1 - Figure 3 below) a mobile device attachment apparatus B1-01 comprising an extended front surface B3-01 wherein having at least one additional elongated sleeve B3-02 for flexibility of use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified front surface A2-03 in the universal device holder 100 of ALTSCHUL with front surface B3-01 as taught in the mobile device attachment apparatus B1-01 of BRITTON for flexibility of use.
PNG
media_image12.png
690
330
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
692
320
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
714
347
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
James (U. S. Patent US11412079B1): Teaches a “pouch” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Burke et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20220079315A1): Teaches a “case” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Sandu (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150334212A1): Teaches an “storage” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735