Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/029,658

CASE AND MOUNT SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Priority
Jan 12, 2012 — provisional 61/585,933 +14 more
Examiner
COLLINS, RAVEN
Art Unit
3735
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Rokform Ip LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 5m
Est. Remaining
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allowance Rate
601 granted / 963 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1006
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
85.7%
+45.7% vs TC avg
§102
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§112
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 963 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species Species 1, claims 21-47, figures 2-5 Species 2, claims 48-50, figures 8A-C, 9A-C, 10 The species are independent or distinct because the mount is not required to assist in the operation of the case for holding the electronic device. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 2 is generic. There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The groups require search in different class/subclass and prior art applicable to one group may not be applicable to the other. Furthermore, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized opposing subject matter. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election. The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species. Claims 21-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/19/2026. 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(s) 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by Kreisel et al. (US 2006/0229740). Claim 48. Kreisel discloses mount for a case for a handheld electronic device, the mount comprising: a mount base 206; an interlock member 302 secured to the mount base, the interlock member comprising a plurality of mount tabs 306, each of which extend outwardly in a radial direction from a central region of the plate portion, the plurality of mount tabs located at spaced intervals in a circumferential direction of the interlock member (fig. 2), wherein the plurality of mount tabs comprises a first mount tab 306, a second mount tab 306, a third mount tab 306, and a fourth mount tab 306, each of which lie in a same plane, wherein the first mount tab and the third mount tab are circumferentially opposed from one another and the second mount tab and the fourth mount tab are circumferentially opposed from one another, wherein the interlock member comprises a plurality of mount spaces, wherein each of the plurality of mount spaces is defined between an adjacent pair of the plurality of mount tabs (fig. 3); wherein the interlock member is configured to selectively interlock the mount with a case, wherein the case is configured to be selectively connectable to the handheld electronic device, a rear wall of the case having an open space that extends from an exterior surface of the rear wall toward an interior space of the case that is configured to receive the handheld electronic device, the open space having a periphery that defines a plurality of case tabs and a plurality of access spaces, wherein each of the plurality of access spaces is defined between an adjacent pair of the plurality of case tabs (fig. 2, 14); wherein the interlock member is configured to be passed at least partially through the open space of the case, with each of the plurality of mount tabs being configured to pass through a respective one of the plurality of access spaces; magnetic means for facilitating axial alignment of the interlocking member with the open space of the body portion such that the plurality of interlock tabs of the interlocking member can be received by the plurality of slots of the open space of the body portion [0056-0060]. Claim 49. Kreisel discloses the mountable case for a handheld electronic device of claim 48, wherein the interlock member is configured to be passed at least partially through the open space of the case in a first orientation of the mount and the case, wherein the mount and the case are configured to rotate relative to one another from the first orientation to a second orientation ([0062]; fig. 2, 14). Claim 50. Kreisel discloses the mountable case for a handheld electronic device of claim 49, further comprising means 210 for selectively interlocking the mount with the case to resist disengagement of the case from the mount [0062]. Response to Arguments Applicant's election with traverse of the applied species rejection in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the case of Species 1 is taught/needed for the point of Species 2. This is not found persuasive because the mount of Species 2 does not require the specifics of the case body in Species 1. Both have uses and functions distinct from one another. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST. 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 STASHICK can be reached at 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. /RAVEN COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735 /Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680746
Mobile Cooling Box with Latch Handle Opening
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12660953
SQUEEZE PREVENTION BRACKET
1y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12656835
CASE AND MOUNT SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12649615
Carrier For Containers
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12611015
COLLAPSIBLE HARD CASE FOR SURFBOARDS AND OTHER LARGE OBJECTS
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 11m (~1y 5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 963 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month