Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim (WO 2014/137146 A1) in view of Park (KR 102275164 B1) and Walters, Jr. (US 2019/0357661 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yim discloses a holder for a portable information terminal comprising: a pair of ring shaped members (42 and/or 33); a case-side portion (10); configured to be attached to a case (1) for a portable information terminal in which a portable information terminal is held (neither the case nor the portable informational terminal currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to be attached”); and a hand-side holding portion (30) configured to be attached to the case-side portion via the ring-shaped members (see Figures), and to come into contact with a finger or a back of a hand of a user; wherein the hand-side holding portion comprises fabric or leather (see “for example, leather straps, sneaker straps, ribbon straps, strings, metal chains, urethane bands and the like”), bulges outward from the case when attached to the case (see Figures), thereby forming a space between the hand-side holding portion and the case-side band portion for insertion of the finger or the hand of the user (see Figures), and has, at opposite end portions thereof, respective passages (formed by 32), each passage defining a hollow space extending in a width direction (see Figures), the passages being formed by folding the end portions of the hand-side holding portion or by tubular portions (see Figures), and each of the ring-shaped members (42 and/or 43) extends through a corresponding one of the passages (see Figures 1 and 2), thereby connecting respective ends of the hand-side holding portion (30) to ends of the case-side portion (10).
Yim fails to disclose the case-side portion (10) being a band portion fixed to the case by an elastic force of the band portion. Yim discloses the case-side portion as a plate (10) adhesively attached to the case but discloses no criticality to such design while he is mostly concerned with providing a thin low-profile mount (see Tech-Problem).
Park teaches that it was also known in the art for a mounting portion (300) to be attached to a case using a strap member (100). Park discloses the strap being adhesively attached (via 120) to the case and fails to disclose the strap specifically being elastic (see “The strap body 110 may be made of synthetic fibers or natural fibers, and any material having a predetermined width, such as synthetic resin material, metal material, or leather material, may be applied.)
Walters teaches that it was already known in the art for a strap like that of Park to be elastic (see “elastic” in [0038]-[0044]) and to be attached to the case by feeding the elastic strap through an interior of the case and securing the elastic strap ends together (see Figures 6 and 7) so that no tools or adhesives are needed in attachment of the strap to the case (see [0047]).
Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the mounting plate of Yim with a mounting strap, as taught by Park, and to have made the mounting strap elastic with releasably attachable ends in order to allow the strap to be mounted to the case without the need for any adhesives, as taught by Walters. To be very clear, the result of this modification would maintain the structure shown in Figure 3(1) of Yim where the plate (10) has been replaced with an elastic strap like that of Walters.
Regarding claim 2, Yim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the hand-side holding portion is composed of a fabric member including a core material. Yim discloses a variety of materials but does not mention a fabric member including a core material. Walters teaches that it was already known for a hand strap like that of Yim to be formed of fabric with a core material (see [0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the strap (30) of Yim from fabric with a core material, where such material was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Walters. 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 3, Lim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 2, wherein the hand-side holding portion (30) includes the fabric member formed of a long fabric, as taught by Walters, formed into a loop shape (at either end of 30, as originally taught by Yim, see Figures), and wherein two sheets of the fabric are superposed (at either end of 30, as originally taught by Yim, see Figures) into an arc shape (see arc shape of 30 originally taught by Yim).
Regarding claim 4, Yim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 3, wherein Yim discloses each of the ring-shaped members (42) extends through a respective tubular portion formed (by 32) at one of opposite end portions of the fabric member (30) having the arc shape (see Figure 3(1)).
Regarding claim 5, Yim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 1, wherein Yin discloses the ring-shaped member (33) includes an opening and closing mechanism (see Figure 2 and “detachable ring 33”).
Regarding claim 6, Yim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein the hand-side holding portion has a width that is at least twice a width of the case-side band portion. The hand-side holding portion (30) of Yim is being combined with a case-side band portion like that of Parks and Walters, the respective widths being so far undefined. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the hand-side holding portion of the modified Yim holder twice as wide as the case-side band portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Predictably, a wider strap would cut into the user’s hand less and generally be more comfortable and padding.
Regarding claim 7, Yim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 6, wherein the width of the case-side band portion is narrower than a width of an opening provided in the case for a USB port such that the band portion is insertable through the opening of the case, and is fixed to the case by the elastic force of the band portion, as taught by Walters (see elastic band going through power/USB port 502 in Figure 5 of Walters).
Regarding claim 8, Yim as modified above would include the holder for a portable information terminal according to claim 1, wherein the ring-shaped members (33) each include an opening/closing mechanism (see Figure 2 and configured to selectively form a closed state defining a continuous ring and an open state in which a portion of the ring is open. Yim fails to disclose the rings (33) specifically being made of metal though he does disclose other fastener parts (43) being made of metal. Official Notice is taken to the fact that it is old and well known in the art for rings like those (33) of Yim to be made of metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have made the rings (33) of the modified Yim holder from metal, where metal was already known to be suitable for such use. 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.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has compared each of Yim, Park, and Walters individually against the current claims. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant has not provided any arguments against the actual combination of references previously set forth and maintained above.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 7/13/26
Prosecution Insights