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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/8/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The examiner was not able to use the links provided or see the products listed in the IDS and no copy of the page showing the product was provided by applicant.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" is indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first tab" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second tab" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,746,638 to Carney.
Regarding claim 1, Carney ‘638 discloses a holder for an electronic or the like device configured to move between a closed position and an open position, the device holder including: a first resiliently deformable member 30 including a first end and a second end; a second resiliently deformable member 40 including a first end and a second end, the second resiliently deformable member 40 being connected to the first resiliently deformable member 30 at the respective first ends; and a first engaging formation 35 connected to the second end of the first resiliently deformable member 30; a second engaging formation 45 connected to the second end of the second resiliently deformable member 40, wherein, in the closed position (Fig. 1abc), the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the second resiliently deformable member 40 are coplanar, and wherein in the open position (Fig. 1f and 2a), the second end of the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the second end of the second resiliently deformable member 40 are disposed away from each other to hold an electronic device between the engaging formations 35/45 of the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the second resiliently deformable member 40, when in use.
Regarding claim 2, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein in the open position, the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the second resiliently deformable member 40 deflect to accommodate the electronic device between the engaging formations (Figs 1f and 2a).
Regarding claim 3, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the deflection of the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the second resiliently deformable member 40 provides a gripping force to hold the electronic device between the engaging formations 35/45 (Fig. 1f).
Regarding claim 5, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the first engaging formation 35 is integrally formed with the first resiliently deformable member 30 and second engaging formation 45 is integrally formed with the second resiliently deformable member 40.
Regarding claim 6, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the first engaging formation 35 includes an end region of the second end of the first resiliently deformable member 30 and a first tab t1 integrally formed with the end region of the first resiliently deformable member 30.
Regarding claim 7, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the second engaging formation 45 includes an end region of the second end of the second resiliently deformable member 40 a second tab t2 integrally formed with the end region of the second resiliently deformable member 40.
Regarding claim 8, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the first tab t1 is configured to deflect relative to the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the second tab t2 is configured to deflect relative to the second resiliently deformable member 40, such that, in use, at least a portion of one side of the electronic device is engaged between the end region of the second end of the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the first tab t1 and at least a portion of an opposite side of the electronic device is engaged between an end region of the second end of the second resiliently deformable member 40 and the second tab t2.
Regarding claim 10, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the first resiliently deformable member 30 and the first tab t1 define an acute angle to engage at least a portion of one side of the electronic device therebetween, when in use (col. 5, line 66 to col. 6 line 7).
Regarding claim 11, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the second resiliently deformable member 40 and the second tab t2 define an acute angle to engage at least a portion of the opposite side of the electronic device therebetween, when in use (col. 5, line 65 to col. 6, line 7).
Regarding claim 12, Carney ‘638 discloses further including a third member 20 connected to the first resiliently deformable member 30, the third member 20 including a mounting region 25 configured for hanging the device holder from a formation.
Regarding claim 14, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the mounting region is an aperture 25.
Regarding claim 15, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the third member 20 is resiliently deformable (col. 3 lines 7-8, 26-30, & 50-60).
Regarding claim 16, Carney ‘638 discloses wherein the third member 20 includes a backing region e1 which is connected to the first resiliently deformable member 30 to provide a rear outer of the device holder.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,746,638 to Carney.
Regarding claim 4, Carney ‘638 is silent as to the first resiliently deformable member is integrally formed with the second resiliently deformable member. However, Carney ‘638 teaches that the three planar sheets can be molded (col. 2, line 52). Noting that molded sheets often form an integral device, such that the three sheets would be integrally formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have integrally formed first and second resiliently deformable members, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Regarding claim 13, Carney ‘638 is silent as to the third member is integrally formed with the second end of the first resiliently deformable member.
However, Carney ‘638 teaches that the three planar sheets can be molded (col. 2, line 52). Noting that molded sheets often form an integral device, such that the three sheets would be integrally formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have integrally formed first resiliently deformable member end and the third member, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Carney ‘638 does not teach a foot at each end of the deformable members and a third member front outer that is pivotal relative to the end of the first deformable member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and will be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable.
The list of supports is as follows: US-20230020938-A1 OR US-20160069508-A1 OR US-20200208773-A1 OR US-20110253850-A1 OR US-20120074271-A1 OR US-20160088750-A1 OR US-20180375980-A1 OR US-20170292647-A1 OR US-20140203160-A1 OR US-20180149302-A1 OR US-20100213331-A1 OR US-8100376-B2 OR US-9308767-B1 OR US-12022942-B2 OR US-10627870-B2 OR US-9249922-B2 OR US-9066442-B2 OR US-D895600-S OR US-9578979-B1 OR US-D626964-S OR US-7800892-B2 OR US-3460795-A OR US-5083663-A OR US-6648293-B1 OR US-10992333-B2 OR US-8636183-B1 OR US-9985678-B1 OR US-11350716-B2 OR US-10265993-B1 OR US-0289799-A OR US-20110101193-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
