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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 7-27 remain withdrawn, claims 1-6 are prosecuted below.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 8593827).
Re Clm 1: Lewis et al. disclose a rod structure (figs 1-8) used in an electronic device (see Technical Field and Background of Specification), comprising: an engaging rod (12), comprising a rod (12), wherein the rod comprises an assembly portion (36, portion of the rod at pivoting point) and a push portion (right end portion of 12, see element 48), the rod is pivotally assembled at an engaged object (16, at engaged object hole 38 via pivot screw 34) via the assembly portion (see figs 3-5), and the push portion is for pushing a pushed object (14); and a fastener (including latch element of rod entering engaged object), for engaging the engaging rod at the engaged object (see figs), wherein when the fastener is engaged with or disengaged from the engaged object, the engaging rod is for causing the push portion to push against the pushed object (see figs 6-8 for engagement and pushing), wherein the assembly portion and the fastener are disposed at different position along the rod and spaced apart from each other (see figs), and a distance between the assembly portion and the fastener on the rod is greater than a distance between the assembly portion and the push portion on the rod (see figs).
Re Clm 2: Lewis et al. disclose a rod structure (figs 1-8) used in an electronic device (see Technical Field and Background of Specification), comprising: an engaging rod (12), comprising a rod (12), wherein the rod comprises an assembly portion (36, portion of the rod at pivoting point), the rod is pivotally assembled at an engaged object (16, at engaged object hole 38 via pivot screw 34) via the assembly portion (see figs 3-5); and a fastener (including latch element of rod entering engaged object), for engaging the engaging rod at an engaged object (16, at engaged object hole 38 via pivot screw 34), wherein the assembly portion and the fastener are disposed at different positions along the rod and spaced apart from each other (see figs).
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 8593827) in view of Wang (US 9441653).
Re Clms 3 and 4: Lewis et al. fail to disclose wherein the fastener comprises an engaging portion, a body, a trigger portion and an clastic element; the engaging portion is for engaging at a counterpart engaging portion of the engaged object, the body is for assembling at the rod of the engaging rod, the trigger portion is located at the body, the engaging portion passes through the body and is movably assembled at the trigger portion, the elastic element is disposed between the engaging portion and the body, the trigger portion is for being triggered to prompt the engaging portion to be elastically moved or moved up and down in the body; and wherein the engaging portion comprises a head, and the head is for elastically sandwiching or engaging the counterpart engaging portion of the engaged object via an elastic force of the elastic element.
Wang, however, teaches a fastener in a rod structure (elements 1-4) of an electronic device, wherein the fastener comprises an engaging portion (2), a body (1), a trigger portion (3) and an elastic element (4); the engaging portion is for engaging at a counterpart engaging portion of the engaged object (20, see figs 2 and 3), the body is for assembling at a rod of the engaging rod (1 is assembled on rod 10), the trigger portion is located at the body (see figs), the engaging portion passes through the body and is movably assembled at the trigger portion (at 322), the elastic element is disposed between the engaging portion and the body (see spring 4 location), the trigger portion is for being triggered to prompt the engaging portion to be elastically moved or moved up and down in the body (via spring 4); the engaging portion comprises a head (221), and the head is for elastically sandwiching or engaging the counterpart engaging portion of the engaged object via an elastic force of the elastic element (see figs 2 and 3). This is taught for the purpose of more securely and precisely locking the rod structure with the engaged structure with minimal effort.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have replaced the locking latch fastener of Lewis et al. with the fastener type of Wang by simple substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of more securely and precisely locking the rod structure with the engaged structure with minimal effort.
Re Clms 5 and 6: Lewis et al. as modified above by Wang discloses wherein the trigger portion and the engaging portion are assembled by a pivotal connection in between (see Wang, pivotal connection at 322), and the trigger portion is for being triggered between an engaging state (see Wang, fig 2) and a lifted state (see Wang, fig 3); in the engaging state, the engaging portion is engaged at the counterpart engaging portion of the object (see Wang, fig 2), the trigger portion is movably assembled at an engaging height between a pivotal portion of the engaging portion and the body; in the lifted state, the engaging portion is disengaged from the counterpart engaging portion of the object (see Wang, fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights