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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 19/179,792, for a LOW PROFILE EXPANDABLE GRIP AND STAND, filed on 4/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are too light and many of the details cannot be discerned. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “231” has been used to designate both an anchor bend and a bridge bend. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 15 there is no reference for a lead line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the electrical path" therein. 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) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altschul et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0046122).
Regarding claim 11, Altschul teaches a method of operating an expandable grip for a mobile device, the method comprising: providing an expandable grip, the expandable grip having: a base configured to couple with a mobile device or a case of a mobile device, a strap being partially retained within the base and movable between a collapsed configuration in which the strap is collapsed and an expanded configuration in which the strap forms a loop; coupling the expandable grip to a mobile device or case (via adhesive); transitioning from the collapsed configuration to the expanded configuration.
[AltContent: textbox (Mobile device)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (strap)][AltContent: textbox (Expandable grip)]
PNG
media_image1.png
728
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (loop)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (opening)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 12, Altschul teaches the method of claim 11, wherein transitioning comprises applying a force to the strap using a finger of a user to reposition the strap from the collapsed configuration to the expanded configuration.
Regarding claim 13, Altschul teaches the method of claim 12, wherein applying the force to the strap comprises pressing or sliding the strap through an opening in the base using a single finger.
Regarding claim 14, Altschul teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising inserting a finger into the loop.
Regarding claim 15, Altschul teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising using the strap in the expanded configuration to support the mobile device in an inclined position on a flat surface (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Altschul teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the grip includes a locking feature (111, 122) configured to resist return to the collapsed configuration, and further comprising: deforming a portion of the strap (at 113) to disengage the locking feature (using force to disengage magnet strength); and returning the strap to the collapsed configuration.
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.
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) 1, 3-5, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altschul et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0046122) in view of Dufelmeier et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0098348).
Regarding claim 1, Altschul teaches a grip for a mobile device comprising: a frame having an adhesive (125) for coupling the grip to a mobile device or a case of a mobile device; a strap configured to transition from a collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration where the strap forms a loop configured to receive a user's finger; wherein the frame defines a partially enclosed opening through which the strap is configured to pass to transition from the collapsed configuration to the expanded configuration (see figures below), but does not teach that the frame has a magnet for coupling the grip to a mobile device or a case of a mobile device. Dufelmeier, however, teaches a grip (16) comprising a frame that has a magnet (26) for coupling the grip to a mobile device or a case of a mobile device [0098] in order to easily and removably attach the grip to the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to substitute adhesive of Altschul for a magnet since the equivalence of the adhesive and magnet for their use in the fastener art and the selection of any known equivalents to releasably, yet securely, attach two items together would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, in further view of Dufelmeier.
[AltContent: textbox (frame)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (strap)][AltContent: textbox (Mobile device)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
728
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (bridge)]
[AltContent: textbox (Partially enclosed opening )][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 3, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the grip of claim 1, wherein the device is configured so that the strap is surrounded by a mobile device when the strap is in the opening and when the grip is coupled to the mobile device.
Regarding claim 4, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the grip of claim 1, but does not teach a ferromagnetic shim disposed between the magnet and a top surface of the frame. A ferromagnetic shim is well known in magnetic field correction systems, to adjust the homogeneity of the main static magnetic field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct a ferromagnetic shim disposed between the magnet and a top surface of the frame in order to improve the homogeneity of the main static magnetic field.
Regarding claim 5, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the grip of claim 1, further comprising a lock (111) configured to engage a portion of the frame (at 122, Fig. 11) in the expanded configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the grip of claim 1, but do not teach that the magnet is coated with an epoxy layer having a thickness of between about 0.005 mm and about 0.05 mm. A thin epoxy coating applied to magnets is well known in the art to protect the magnet from corrosion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Altschul and Dufelmeier wherein the magnet is coated with an epoxy layer having a thickness of between about 0.005 mm and about 0.05 mm in order to shield it from rust, chipping, and chemical attack, provide electrical insulation, and improve durability, all without significantly weakening its magnetic field, which is common in applications where magnets must last longer in demanding environments, and further, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the grip of claim 1, but does not teach a total thickness of the grip in the collapsed state is 3 mm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Altschul and Dufelmeier where a total thickness of the grip in the collapsed state is 3 mm or less in order prevent interference of the grip with the device, and further, because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altschul et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0046122) in view of Dufelmeier et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0098348).
Regarding claim 8, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the grip of claim 1, but do not teach that the strap is secured to the frame via a rivet. A rivet is a fastening means that will secure two members in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Altschul and Dufelmeier wherein the strap is secured to the frame via a rivet in order to firmly hold the strap member in place.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altschul et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0046122) in view of Dufelmeier et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0098348) in further view of Le Gette et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0191106).
Regarding claim 17, Altschul and Dufelmeier teach the method of claim 11, but do not teach the step of magnetically coupling the expandable grip and mobile device to an external ferromagnetic surface for hands-free use. Le Gette, however teaches the step of magnetically coupling an expandable grip and mobile device to an external ferromagnetic surface for hands-free use (see [0098] regarding coupling the connection mechanism 1802 of a mobile device 1800 to an external ferromagnetic surface, such as a refrigerator, filing cabinet or locker). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the step of magnetically coupling the expandable grip and mobile device to an external ferromagnetic surface for hands-free use in order to support the electron device on various surfaces, in view of Le Gette.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6 are 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.
Claim 9 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.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 11832712, 2021/0337056, 2021/0227960, 2020/0328017.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights