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 .
Specification
The use of the term LYCRA and SPANDEX, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 3 and 5 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 3 depends on itself. A claim cannot depend on itself, as this creates an indefinite, circular reference.
Regarding claim 5, the claim contains the trademark/trade name LYCRA. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe panels and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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, 5, 6, 9-12, 14-16, 18-25, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) and United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0047532 (Thibault) and United States Patent 5,426,419 (Nguyen, et al).
Galomb, et al discloses a system comprising a flexible case (figure 4A, 4B, 4C, #200). The case including front panel (#22) comprising a lower edge (#40), sides (#22) that are longer than the lower edge (#40) and an upper edge (#44).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The front panel (#22) further comprises a front flap (#34) extending from a fold line (#26) of the front panel (#22) and defining the upper edge (#30, 32) of the front panel (#22). Rear panel (#26) comprising a lower edge (#40) attached to the front panel's (#22) lower edge (#40). Sides that are approximately the same length as the front panel's (#22) sides and an upper edge (#38).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The rear panel (#26) further comprises a rear flap (#26) extending from a fold line of the rear panel (#26) and defining the upper edge (#38) of the rear panel (#26). The front (#22) and rear (#26) panels' respective sides are attached closed such that the fold lines (#26) define an opening to a cavity opposite to the lower edges (#40), the cavity sized to receive objects (¶23-27). The front and rear flaps (#26) are configured to fold away from the cavity such that the opening is accessible to the user and a lock including (figures 7C,7D). A male locking member (#78) associated with the front flap (#26) and a female locking member (#86) associated with the rear flap (#26), the female locking member (#86) configured to engage the male locking member (#78). The lock is configured to secure the flaps (#26) in a closed position such that the case limits the user's access.
PNG
media_image3.png
507
463
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Galomb, et al shows a flexible case (#200). The case comprising a first panel (#43) comprising a flexible material.
PNG
media_image4.png
255
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The first panel (#22) comprising a lower edge (#40), sides, and an upper edge (#44). The first panel (#22) further comprises a first flap (#26) extending from a fold line of the first panel (#22) and defining the upper edge (#44) of the first panel (#22). A second panel (#38) comprising a flexible material. The first panel (#22) comprising a lower edge (#40) coupled to the first panel's lower edge (#40). Sides that are approximately the same length as the first panel's (#22) sides, and an upper edge (#38). The second panel (#26) further comprises a first flap (#26) extending from a fold line of the second panel (#26) and defining the upper edge (#38) of the second panel (#26).
The first (#26) and second (#22) panels' respective sides are closed, thereby forming an opening to a cavity opposite to the lower edges (#40), the cavity sized to receive contents (¶23-28). The front and rear flaps (#26) are configured to fold away from the fold lines of the first (#22) and second (#26) panels such that the opening is accessible to the user and a lock including a first locking member (#78) associated with the first flap (#26) and a second locking member (#86) associated with the second flap (#26), the second locking member (#26) configured to engage the first locking member (#78); and wherein the lock is configured to secure the flaps (#26) in a closed position such that the case limits the user's access to the contents in the closed position.
PNG
media_image5.png
606
427
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Galomb, et al reveals case (#200) for limiting a user's access comprising a front surface (#28) comprising a lower edge (#40), sides that are longer than the lower edge (#40), and an upper edge (#44), wherein the front surface (#22) further comprises a line (#26, 28) across the front surface (#22) that defines an upper portion of the front surface (#22). A rear surface (#26) comprising a lower edge (#40) coupled to the rear surface's (#26) lower edge (#40), sides that are approximately the same length as the front surface's (#22) sides, and an upper edge (#44). The rear surface (#26) further comprises a (#26, 28) line across the rear surface (#26) that defines an upper portion of the rear surface (#26). The front (#22) and rear (#26) surfaces' respective sides are connected such that the front (#22) and rear (#26) surfaces define an opening to a cavity opposite to the lower edges (#40). The cavity sized to receive contents (¶23-28) and a lock including a male locking member (#78) positioned at least partially inside the upper portion of the front surface (#22). A female locking member (#78) positioned at least partially inside the upper portion of the rear surface (#26), the female locking member (#78) configured to engage the male locking (#78) member. The lock is configured to secure the upper portion of the front surface (#22) and upper portion of the rear surface (#26) in a closed position (#26) such that the case limits access to the inside the case when in the closed position.
PNG
media_image6.png
506
394
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Galomb, et al does not disclose limiting the use of a cell phone or smartphone. Stewart, et al teaches the use limiting the use of a cell phone or smartphone by a flexible case for the purpose of securing different sized products in a flexible housing, note figures 1-3, #14.
PNG
media_image7.png
482
422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hence, 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 to incorporate the use of limiting the use of a cell phone or smartphone by a flexible case for the purpose of securing different sized products in a flexible housing, as taught by Stewart, et al in the flexible case of Galomb, et al in order to prevent an unauthorized attempt to remove the product from the flexible material.
PNG
media_image8.png
485
413
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding the stitching as stated by claims 1 and 25, stitching for a flexible case is ancient, some 10,000 years old, commercially available, and not invented by Applicant. The Examiner take Official Notice as such and provides Thibault as evidence as such. Hence, it would be extremely obvious to one below ordinary to use stitching in the construction of the flexible case depending the material use in the flexible case.
Regarding separate detacher including a holder and a magnet within the holder configured to unlock the lock such that, when a locking member is brought close to or in contact with the detacher as stated by claim 1, note 22 in Stewart, et al.
A separate detacher as described, is at least some thirty years old, commercially available, and not invented by Applicant. The Examiner takes Official Notice as such and provides Nguyen, et al in order to disengage the male member from the female member.
Regarding claim 5, note ¶21 in Stewart, et al and ¶3, 46 in Galoub, et al.
Regarding claim 6, note figures 7C, 7D in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claim 9, note figures 1-3, #16, 24 in Stewart, et al.
Regarding claim 10, note figures 8, 11 in Nguyen, et al.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, note #16, ¶22 in Stewart, et al.
Regarding claim 12, note #32 and 30, in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claim 15, note #26, 46 in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, note near #3H in figure 2 in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claim 19, note #14 in Stewart, et al.
Regarding claim 21, this is inherent of any lock that interlocks something close and when the lock is unlocks, that something opens. Also note figure 3 in Stewart, et al.
Regarding claim 22, both Stewart, et al. and Galomb, et al. shows that the material could be non-transparent which inherently prevent anyone from viewing the screen.
Regarding claims 23 and 28 note figure 3 in Stewart, et al. and figures 2A, 3, 4A and 5 in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claim 24, note figures 7C and 7D, #52 78 in Galomb, et al. and #2H in figure 2 of Nguyen, et al.
Regarding claim 29 note 7C and 7D, #78, 86, in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claim 30 note ¶22 in Stewart, et al.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 17, 26, 27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the male locking member is stitched at least partially inside the upper portion of the front surface and the female locking member is stitched at least partially inside the upper portion of the rear surface. In combination within a case for limiting a user's access to their own cell phone or smartphone comprising a front surface comprising a lower edge, sides that are longer than the lower edge, and an upper edge. The front surface further comprises a stitching line across the front surface that defines an upper portion of the front surface. A rear surface comprising a lower edge coupled to the rear surface's lower edge, sides that are approximately the same length as the front surface's sides, and an upper edge. The rear surface further comprises a stitching line across the rear surface that defines an upper portion of the rear surface. The front and rear surfaces' respective sides are connected such that the front and rear surfaces define an opening to a cavity opposite to the lower edges, the cavity sized to receive a mobile electronic device, the mobile electronic device being a cell phone or smart phone and a lock including a male locking member positioned at least partially inside the upper portion of the front surface. A female locking member positioned at least partially inside the upper portion of the rear surface, the female locking member configured to engage the male locking member. The lock is configured to secure the upper portion of the front surface and upper portion of the rear surface in a closed position such that the case limits access to a cell phone or smartphone inside the case when in the closed position.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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 S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645