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 .
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) 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Morgan et al. (2010/0139140) in view of Chang (5253440).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan et al. discloses a display device ,the display device comprising a backpiece (16), hingeably mounted by one or more hinge elements (hinges 22, 24; see Fig. 4) to a frontispiece (12), enabling the frontispiece to be pivoted along a first edge between a closed, display position and an open position (as in Fig. 3) allowing insertion/removal of a display article, the frontispiece having a border section and a transparent viewing section (for example, 14; Fig. 1), the viewing section and border section secured together to form the frontispiece. Morgan discloses a catch at 34, 38, however does not show the details of the catch including an actuator.
Chang teaches a picture frame with a frontispiece (10) and a back piece (20), and a catch releasably securing the frontispiece to the backpiece, the catch comprising an actuator (42) movable within the backpiece and in a direction through the body of the backpiece, to respectively engage and release the frontispiece, movement of the actuator causing a retaining element (411) to raise and lower to respectively engage and disengage from a retaining element barrier mounted on the frontispiece, the engagement preventing pivoting of the frontispiece from the closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morgan et al. with the teachings of Chang in order to better secure the frame in the closed position.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Morgan discloses support elements (36, 40) on the frontispiece, wherein the support elements have different orientation (see for example, in Fig 4- 36 and 40 are arranged in different orientations.
Regarding claim 9, Morgan shows the viewing section having walls (see edge 26; Fig. 4) to definite a rectangular area to retain an article.
Regarding claim 10, the viewing section includes channel elements (edges 26) cooperating to retain an elongate spacer (border 13 serves as a spacer between edges 26).
Regarding claim 12, the hinge includes a pivot mount (one half of the hinge) enagagable with the mounting element on the backpiece (other half of hinge).
Regarding claim 13, the examiner takes Official Notice that stop elements in hinges are old and well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to provide the hinge with a stop element to prevent pivoting beyond a certain angle to prevent damage to the device.
Regarding claims 14-15, the pivot mount and mounting element (of the hinge) have a cylindrical outer surface (see rounded hinge edges in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Morgan and Chang shows the catch (as taught by Change, discussed above) engaging by a push-fit arrangement by insertion of the fitment edges of the catch (411) into channels of the backpiece.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang (7740289).
The combination of Morgan et al. and Chang lacks an arch piece defining a channel and a wedge shape. Tang teaches a housing comprising a catch with an actuator and an arch piece 211 (see figure 1) through which a wedge shape 2431 (see figure 2) passes to engage the retaining elements and retaining element barrier (see Tang figure 1, 2, column 2 lines 33-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include an arch piece and a wedge shape as taught by Tang in combination with a display device as taught by Morgan and Chang, since the mere substitution of one type of catch for another would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heeps (2011/0131855).
Regarding claims 16-18, Chang lacks a resilient support as claimed. Heeps teaches resilient fingers 42 of the same design as the present invention having arms and heads for engaging a display article (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include resilient fingers as taught by Heeps in combination with a frame as a taught by Morgan and Chang in order to ensure the display article is held flat against the display window.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DUNN whose telephone number is (571)272-6670. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636