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
Applicant has submitted large amount of Information Disclosure Statements and/or huge number of references and/or reference(s) which are very hefty. Where applicant points the Examiner to large reference or references without citing a specific portion or page, the Examiner will not pour over the documents to extract the relevant information, Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. palm Press, Inc. 164 F.3rd 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999), Winer International Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F3d 1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000). It is not true, if applicant presents an overload of irrelevant or non-probative references, somehow the irrelevancies will add up to relevant evidence, DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867. Information Disclosure Statements must make all relevant information accessible to the Examiner, rather ask him to play archaeologist with the references, Shiokawa v. Maienfisch, 56 USPQ2d 1406, 1413 and LeVeen v. Edwards 57 USPQ2d 1406, 1413. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). With this in mind, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the detacher is provided at an exit of the venue and the first securing member comprises a hook portion of a hook-and-loop fastener, and wherein the second securing member comprises a loop portion of the hook-and-loop fasten must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Interpretation
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use or not the use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not support, for the filing date sought, and/or inadequately describes the now claimed the locks further comprise first and second magnetic plates formed within the front and rear panels, respectively and the first securing member comprises a hook portion of a hook-and-loop fastener, and wherein the second securing member comprises a loop portion of the hook-and-loop fastener.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the member’s" and “the audience member’s” 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) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0190841 (Nash) .
Nash discloses a method for reducing the distraction caused by a mobile electronic device at a venue, the method comprising identifying a venue where mobile electronic devices are likely to cause distraction during a communal event (figures 14-16, ¶4) providing a flexible case (#102) to a user of a mobile electronic device (#90), wherein the mobile electronic device (#90) is a cell phone or a smart phone (¶76, claim 1). The lock (figure 9, #106) is configured to secure the case in a closed position and is further configured to prevent a user from controlling their electronic device and limiting the user's control over the user's mobile electronic device (#90) at the venue by causing the case to be locked with the user's mobile electronic device (#90) within the case, reducing the distraction caused by the user's mobile electronic device at the communal event (¶4, 65, 19, 133, etc.).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding front panel having a lower edge and sides that are longer than the lower edge, a rear panel having a lower edge coupled to the front panel's lower edge and sides that are approximately the same length as the front panel's sides, wherein the front and rear panels' respective sides are closed thereby forming an opening to a cavity opposite the lower edges, wherein the cavity is sized to receive the mobile electronic device, and a lock, comprising a first locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the front panel, and a second locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the rear panel, the second locking member configured to engage the first locking member, note paragraph 5 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, note ¶4 which shows allowing the user to retain possession of their mobile electronic device locked within the flexible case during at least a portion of the communal event.
PNG
media_image3.png
487
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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).
Claim(s) 15, 19, 20, 26, 29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al).
A flexible case (figure 1-3, #10) for a mobile electronic device (#14), the flexible case (#12) comprising a front panel having sides, each extending in parallel to the other in a longitudinal direction, and a bottom edge extending between the sides of the front panel in a lateral direction (#12). A rear panel having sides, each extending in parallel to the other in the longitudinal direction, and a bottom edge extending between the sides of the rear panel in the lateral direction (#12) The front and rear panels are coupled such that the bottom edges and sides of the front and rear panels define a cavity (#24) having an opening opposite to the bottom edges (#12). The cavity is sized to receive a user's mobile electronic device (#14), and wherein each of the front and rear panels are foldable relative to the longitudinal direction to close the opening of the cavity (#24) and a first securing member connected to the front panel and a second securing member connected to the rear panel (#24). The first securing member is configured such that, when the front and rear panels are folded relative to the longitudinal direction to close the opening of the cavity (#12), the first securing member engages the second securing member and securing the case in a closed position such that it limits the user's access to their mobile electronic device (#14, ¶17-27).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 19 and 20, first side of the front panel's sides and a first side of the rear panel's sides are coupled via stitching and the front panel's bottom edge and the rear panel's bottom edge are not coupled via stitching, note ¶24-26.
PNG
media_image5.png
517
441
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 21 and 22, this claim is not a patentable limitation against the flexible case since this is only limiting mobile electronic device. Also note ¶21.
PNG
media_image6.png
522
423
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, this claim is inherent since the electronic device cannot be use for anything.
Regarding claim 26, note ¶22 and #16 which shows the first and second securing member are further configured to unlock via a detacher comprising a magnet.
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).
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, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0190841 (Nash) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al).
Nash, et al discloses a system for reducing an audience's distraction from the member's respective mobile electronic devices at a communal event, the system comprising a plurality of flexible cases (figure 9, ¶11). The lock (#106) is configured to secure the case (#102) in a closed position, thereby limiting the audience member's access to their mobile electronic device (¶4). Also note the above paragraphs. Nash, et al does not disclose flexible cases comprising a front panel having a lower edge and sides that are longer than the lower edge, a rear panel having a lower edge and sides that are approximately the same length as the front panel's lower edge and sides, wherein the front and rear panels are coupled such that the lower edges and sides of the front and rear panels form a cavity having an opening opposite to the lower edges, the cavity sized to receive an audience member's mobile electronic device; and a lock comprising a first locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the front panel, and second locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the rear panel, the second locking member configured to engage the first locking member. Stewart, et al teaches the use of flexible cases comprising a front panel having a lower edge and sides that are longer than the lower edge, a rear panel having a lower edge and sides that are approximately the same length as the front panel's lower edge and sides, wherein the front and rear panels are coupled such that the lower edges and sides of the front and rear panels form a cavity having an opening opposite to the lower edges, the cavity sized to receive a mobile electronic device, and a lock comprising a first locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the front panel, and second locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the rear panel, the second locking member configured to engage the first locking member for the purpose of electronic device may be sealed and prevent unauthorized removal, note figures 1-3, ¶17-27, ##10, 14, 24. Hence, it 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 flexible cases comprising a front panel having a lower edge and sides that are longer than the lower edge, a rear panel having a lower edge and sides that are approximately the same length as the front panel's lower edge and sides, wherein the front and rear panels are coupled such that the lower edges and sides of the front and rear panels form a cavity having an opening opposite to the lower edges, the cavity sized to receive a mobile electronic device, and a lock comprising a first locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the front panel, and second locking member outside of the cavity and connected to the rear panel, the second locking member configured to engage the first locking member for the purpose of electronic device may be sealed and prevent unauthorized removal, as taught by Stewart, et al, in the system for reducing an audience's distraction from the member's respective mobile electronic devices at a communal event of Stewart, et al in order to provide a security device made of a flexible material into which a product may be sealed and prevent unauthorized removal.
Regarding claim 6, note figure 3.
Regarding claim 7, note Abstract of Nash.
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).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0190841 (Nash) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0374076 (Theobald).
Nash disclose all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for restoring the user's control over their mobile electronic device by providing a detacher, the detacher comprising a holder and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to unlock the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock unlocks and the user may access their mobile electronic device. Also note paragraph 5 above. Theobald teaches the use of restoring the user's control over their mobile electronic device by providing a detacher, the detacher comprising a holder and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to unlock the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock unlocks and the user may access their contents for the purpose of a magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the control member to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the control member, figures 5 and 6, ¶44-49. Hence, it 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 restoring the user's control over their mobile electronic device by providing a detacher, the detacher comprising a holder and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to unlock the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock unlocks and the user may access their contents for the purpose of a magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the control member to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the control member, as taught by Theobald in the system for reducing an audience's distraction from the member's respective mobile electronic devices at a communal event of Nash in in order to when a magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the control member to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the control member.
Regarding claim 13, note paragraph 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, the user must have or receive the detacher, hence the detacher is restricted until that predetermined condition is met.
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).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent 5,953,795 (Bauer).
Stewart, et al disclose all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for the first and second securing members comprise magnetic plates.
Bauer teaches the use of a well-known and some two decades old first and second securing members comprise magnetic plates for the purpose of a magnetic snap lock which comprises a male member and a female member which can cooperate with each other to define a locking position, note figures 2, 7, 10A. Hence, it 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 a first and second securing members comprise magnetic plates for the purpose of a magnetic snap lock which comprises a male member and a female member which can cooperate with each other to define a locking position, as taught by Bauer, in the flexible case of Stewart, et al in order to providing a magnetic snap lock which comprises a male member and a female member which can cooperate with each other to define a locking position.
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).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0047522 (Thibault).
Claim 18, Stewart, et al disclose all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for first side of the front panel's sides and a first side of the rear panel's sides are coupled via stitching. Containers or bags have a first side of the front panel's sides and a first side of the rear panel's sides are coupled via stitching is very old, common, and commercially available and the Examiner takes official notice and supplies Thibault as evidence. Hence, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having below ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate the old and well know use of a first side of the front panel's sides and a first side of the rear panel's sides are coupled via stitching in the flexible case of Stewart, et al in order to attached the sides of flexible case to each other.
Regarding claim 17, securing member comprises a hook portion of a hook-and-loop fastener, a hook portion of a hook-and-loop fastener for flexible case for securing an opening is extremely old, well known and commercially available and the Examiner takes Official Notice as such. It would be very obvious toa person having below ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate the use such extremely old, well known and commercially available for using a lock or fastener which is inexpensive.
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).
Claim(s) 23, 24, 28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent 6,864,791 (Kam).
Stewart, et al disclose all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for the first securing member is a configured to receive and lock to a latch of the second securing member. The Examiner takes Official Notice that a first securing member is a configured to receive and lock to a latch of the second securing member is very old, well known and commercially available to the public. The Examiner provides Kam as evidence as such. Hence, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having below ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate the old and well know use of a first securing member is a configured to receive and lock to a latch of the second securing member in the flexible case of Stewart, et al in order to keep the overall cost of flexible case minimal.
Regarding claim 24, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), the position of the securing members is unpatentable because shifting the position of the securing members would not have modified the operation of the flexible case. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) the particular placement of a securing members is held to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 28, note #24 in figure 3 of Stewart, et al.
Regarding claim 30, note figures 2 and 4, #15 in Kam, 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).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0190841 (Nash) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0374076 (Theobald).
Nash in view of Stewart, et al disclose all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for restoring the user's control over their mobile electronic device by providing a detacher, the detacher comprising a holder and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to unlock the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock unlocks and the user may access their mobile electronic device. Also note paragraph 5 above. Theobald teaches the use of restoring the user's control over their mobile electronic device by providing a detacher, the detacher comprising a holder and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to unlock the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock unlocks and the user may access their contents for the purpose of a magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the control member to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the control member, figures 5 and 6, ¶44-49. Hence, it 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 restoring the user's control over their mobile electronic device by providing a detacher, the detacher comprising a holder and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to unlock the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock unlocks and the user may access their contents for the purpose of a magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the control member to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the control member, as taught by Theobald in the system for reducing an audience's distraction from the member's respective mobile electronic devices at a communal event of Nash in view of Stewart, et al in order to when a magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the control member to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the control member.
Regarding claim 3, note ¶22-23 in Stewart, et al.
Regarding claim 4, note #78 in Theobald.
Regarding claim 5, note ¶22 -23 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
Claims 8 and 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 25 and 28 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 does not disclose or make obvious the claimed he flexible case further comprises first and second magnetic plates disposed within the front and rear panels, respectively. In combination in a flexible case for a mobile electronic device. The flexible case comprising a front panel having sides, each extending in parallel to the other in a longitudinal direction, and a bottom edge extending between the sides of the front panel in a lateral direction. A rear panel having sides, each extending in parallel to the other in the longitudinal direction, and a bottom edge extending between the sides of the rear panel in the lateral direction. The front and rear panels are coupled such that the bottom edges and sides of the front and rear panels define a cavity having an opening opposite to the bottom edges. The cavity is sized to receive a user's mobile electronic device. Each of the front and rear panels are foldable relative to the longitudinal direction to close the opening of the cavity and a first securing member connected to the front panel and a second securing member connected to the rear panel. The first securing member is configured such that, when the front and rear panels are folded relative to the longitudinal direction to close the opening of the cavity, the first securing member engages the second securing member, thereby securing the case in a closed position such that it limits the user's access to their mobile electronic device. The first securing member is a configured to receive and lock to a latch of the second securing member.
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