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 Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 1-2 cite “wherein the coupling mechanism a bottom plate” . Appropriate correction is required to ““wherein the coupling mechanism is a bottom plate”.
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 7 and 17 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 7 lines 2-3 cites: “a side of the mobile device is folded by the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part to abut against the second part”. It’s not understood how this is possible, since the mobile device doesn’t comprise folding properties. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret claim 7 as “wherein after the mobile device protection and support frame is coupled to the mobile device, a side of the mobile device protection and support frame is folded by the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part to abut against the mobile device”.
Claim 17 lines 2-3 cites: “a side of the mobile device is folded by the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part to abut against the second part”. It’s not understood how this is possible, since the mobile device doesn’t comprise folding properties. For the purpose of examination, the office will interpret claim 7 as “wherein after the mobile device protection and support frame is coupled to the mobile device, a side of the mobile device protection and support frame is folded by the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part to abut against the mobile device”.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 215729496 U; “Wang hereinafter) in view of Ke et al (US 20170322593; “Ke” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1,Wang teaches: a mobile device protection and support frame (100), which can be coupled to a mobile device (200) by a coupling mechanism (15, figs. 13 and 16), comprising:
a first part (111 and 112, fig. 9), comprising a fixed part (111) arranged on a side of the first part (figs. 9-10), thereby when the mobile device protection and support frame is coupled to the mobile device, the fixed part cannot be moved or folded relative to the mobile device (¶[n0093]); and
a second part (113, fig. 9), coupled to the first part by a first primary flexible part (see ‘FPFP’ in annotated figs. 11-12 below);
wherein, the first part further comprises a second primary flexible (13, fig. 12) part spanning across the first part and disposed adjacent to the fixed part (fig. 12), such that a part of the first part and the second part can be folded relative to the fixed part (figs. 10-11);
wherein, the second part further comprises a third primary flexible part (14, fig. 12) substantially parallel to the second primary flexible part (fig. 12); and
wherein, the first part is a sheet body including two sides (see annotated fig. 10 below), a first free end of the second part (see annotated fig. 10 below) can be folded towards an inner side of the two sides of the first part by the second primary flexible part or the third primary flexible part to abut against the first part (as disclosed upon examination of annotated figure 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
590
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wang does not explicitly teach:
a first free end of the second part can be folded towards an outer side of the two sides of the first part by the second primary flexible part or the third primary flexible part to abut against the first part.
However, Ke teaches:
a first free end (distal end of 111d, fig. 17) of a second part (111c and 111d) can be folded towards an outer side (see annotated fig. 17 below) of the two sides of the first part by the second primary flexible part (113a) or the third primary flexible part (114b) to abut against the first part (111a and 111b, fig. 17).
PNG
media_image3.png
163
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile device protection and support frame of Wang with Ke’s teaching, such that a first free end of the second part can be folded towards either of the two sides of the first part by the second primary flexible part or the third primary flexible part to abut against the first part, in order to provide adjustment of viewing angle of the mobile device freely to watch the mobile device (¶[0005]). The claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Ke. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of a plurality of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity (§MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Ke teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the combination further teaches:
Wherein the first free end (distal end of 111d, fig. 17, Ke) is folded towards an outer side (see annotated fig. 17 above, Ke) of the two sides of the first part by the second primary flexible part (113a) or the third primary flexible part (114b) to abut against the second primary flexible part (fig. 17, Ke).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Wang in view of Ke teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Wang further teaches:
wherein after the mobile device protection and support frame is coupled to the mobile device (fig. 9), a side (113, fig. 9) of the mobile device protection and support frame is folded by the first primary flexible part (see annotated fig. 9 below) and the second primary flexible part (13, fig. 12) to abut against the mobile device (21).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Ke teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the Wang further teaches:
wherein the coupling mechanism is a snap-on back cover (15, figs. 13 and 16) with a size substantially the same as the mobile device and snapped to a side of the mobile device (figs. 13 and 16), and the fixed part is coupled to a part of the snap-on back cover (¶[n0094]), such that the first part and the second part can be folded relative to the snap-on back cover by the first primary flexible part (figs. 16-18), the second primary flexible part or the third primary flexible part (see figs. 13, 16-18).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Ke teaches the limitations of claim 1, and the Wang further teaches:
wherein the coupling mechanism a bottom plate (151), the fixed part and a part of the bottom plate are fixed to each other (¶[n0094]), such that the first part and the second part can be folded relative to the bottom plate by the second primary flexible part (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 9, 13, 16-18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 18-20 allowed.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claim 11, a combination of limitations that teaches: wherein, the mobile device protection and support frame further comprises a gap spanning across the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part, such that the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part are in a discontinuous form and disconnected to form a second free end and a third free end. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 12-20 are objected to by virtue of dependency to claim 11.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest,
in combination with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that teaches:
further comprising a gap spanning across the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part, such that the first primary flexible part and the second primary flexible part are in a discontinuous form and disconnected to form a second free end and a third free end. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 3-5, 8 are objected to by virtue of dependency to claim 1.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is:
US 8640864 B2 Foldable Cover. This invention relates generally to foldable cover comprising a supporting unit and a fixing unit. The supporting unit comprises a plurality of first separations, a convergent part and a plurality of first slab-shaped parts.
US 20130140203 A1 Protective Cover. This invention generally relates to a protective cover having a first covering part, a second covering part, a third covering part, a first magnetic element, a second magnetic element, and a third magnetic element. The first covering part has a first connecting lateral, a second connecting lateral and a plurality of first hard domains, and adjacent first hard domains are connected to each other flexibly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights