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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 12-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka 6,961,234.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a system (col 2 line 65) comprising: a display device (100, Figs 1-15) that comprises a display device housing (110, Fig 3), a display (111, Fig 3), a display side (side where 111 locates, Fig 3), a back side (114, Fig 10) that is opposite the display side (see Fig 3 with respect to Fig 10), a back side flap (320, Fig 10), a back side recess (115, Figs 1, 2) that seats the back side flap (see Fig 1), and a flap hinge (155, Fig 10), on the back side (Fig 10), that couples the back side flap to the housing for rotation of the back side flap (see Fig 10 rotation along 295), wherein the back side flap comprises a recess side (side of 320 not exposed when seated within 115, Fig 1) and a back-side side (side of 320 facing 250, Fig 10); and an input device (180, Fig 3) that comprises an input device housing (120, Fig 3), a support flap (200, Fig 5), and a support flap hinge (133, Fig 6 with respect to Fig 5) that couples the support flap to the input device housing (see Figs 10, 12), wherein the support flap comprises an interior side (interior side of 200 facing 220, Fig 5) and an exterior side (exterior side of 200 exposed, Fig 5), and wherein the support flap comprises a coupling (155, Fig 10) that couples the interior side of the support flap to the back-side side of the back side flap of the display device (as depicted Fig 10).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the support flap hinge comprises a range of motion from approximately 0 degrees to approximately 360 degrees (approx. 150 degrees, col 4 lines 11-14 – note: range of motion from 0 to 360 degrees can reasonably include stopping at 150 degrees, because 150 degrees falls directly within that numerical span).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the support flap hinge comprises variable friction that depends on an angle of rotation of the support flap with respect to the input device housing (“brake hinge” considered variable friction type, col 4 lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the variable friction is greater at a clearance angle (with angle as depicted in Fig 10) greater than at 10 degrees (col 4 lines 11-14), wherein the clearance angle provides a gap (gap formed beneath 295 for example, Fig 10) between a lower edge of the display device housing (lower edge of 110, Fig 10) and an upper surface of the input device housing (at 122, Fig 10) for rotation of the display device housing via the flap hinge (see Fig 10).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein, at a clearance angle (angle as depicted in Fig 10), the support flap provides a gap (gap formed beneath 295 for example, Fig 10) between a lower edge of the display device housing (lower edge of 110, Fig 10) and an upper surface of the input device housing (at 122, Fig 10) for rotation of the display device housing via the flap hinge (see Fig 10), wherein the clearance angle is less than 80 degrees (angle formed at 295 less than 80 degrees, Fig 10).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the support flap hinge comprises multiple axles (at least two axles on 120, not labeled, Fig 10).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 6, wherein multiple axles are spaced at a distance (see axles in Fig 10 spaced at distance).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the distance is approximately equal to a thickness of the display device housing (see distance of axles relative to thickness of display, Fig 10).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the support flap comprises electrical contacts (in the form of electrical interconnect 136, Fig 7A).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the back side flap comprises electrical contacts (note backside flap comprise support flap which comprise 136, Fig 7a).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the flap hinge comprises a range of motion from approximately 0 degrees to at least 60 degrees (see col 4 lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the display device housing comprises a rectangular perimeter with long edges and short edges (as depicted in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the display device is supportable by the input device in a portrait position and in a
landscape position (Examiner notes, the device as shown in Fig 4, for example considered supportable by input device in both positions once rotated/oriented as desired).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the back side flap comprises independently rotatable portions (back side flap 320 has independently rotatable portions at 155 an/or opposite end of 155 – not labeled, Fig 10).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the input device housing comprises a groove (at 134, Fig 7A) and an electrical connector disposed in the groove (see 136 in groove, Fig 7A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka 6,961,234 in view of Onda 9,134,755.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 6, except wherein the support flap hinge comprises gears.
Onda, however, teaches a similar system (Title, Abstract) including a support flap hinge (70, Figs 18A, 18B) comprising gears (76, 77, Figs 18A, 18B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support flap hinge of Tanaka to include gears, as taught by Onda, in order to provide a tilt operation where the display is adjustable relative to the input device in a smoothly controlled dampened manner upon opening/closing the device, that spreads mechanical force across gear teeth to reduce localized wear of certain components, thereby improving reliability and user experience.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka 6,961,234 in view of Grinstead 2015/0378399.
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, except wherein the coupling comprises a planar arrangement of magnets disposed on the support flap. Grinstead, however, teaches a similar system (Title) including wherein the coupling comprises a planar arrangement of magnets (26 and/or 30a, 30b, Fig 2) disposed on a support flap (24, Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling of Collins to include an arrangement of magnets as claimed, and as taught by Grinstead, in order to produce an accessory band design feature that can provide mechanical as well as magnetic lead-in guidance or attractive force for retention, during docking of the backside flap onto the base portion, thereby improving reliability and functionality.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka 6,961,234 in view of Collins 2020/0371563
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 1, except wherein the input device comprises a battery.
Collins, however, teaches a similar system (Fig 1) wherein the input device (112/112a, Figs 17, 18) comprises a battery (134, Fig 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Tanaka to include a battery, as taught by Collins, in order to provide power to the device and heat generating components thereof, thereby improving functionality.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka discloses the system of claim 14, except wherein the input device comprises wireless communication circuitry.
Collins, however, teaches a similar system (Fig 1) wherein the input device comprises wireless communication circuitry (such as Bluetooth communication, par 0100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the input device of Tanaka to include a wireless communication, as taught by Collins, in order to provide wireless connectivity between display and input device to enhance user experience and usability when devices are not connected by wire, thereby improving functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the planar arrangement of magnets comprises radial symmetry to couple the interior side of the support flap to the back-side side of the back side flap in one of a landscape position and a portrait position.
*Reason - Dependent claim 11, in combination with the remaining elements
of the independent claim(s) from which it directly/indirectly depend, are not
taught, or adequately suggested in the prior art of record. For example, although Grinstead teaches the radial symmetrical arrangement of magnets, it does not teach or suggest a reasonable motivation to couple the interior side of the support flap to the back-side side of the back side flap in one of a landscape position and a portrait position in the manner claimed. Additionally, an updated search did not yield reasonable prior art within appropriate date to read thereon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ashcraft - US 20140153176 A1, Fig 3. Teaches similar structure with electrical contacts within support flap.
Rothkopf - US 20120194448 A1, Figs 1A. Teaches magnetic attachment support flap/hinge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEN E MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-8852. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/RASHEN E MORRISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights