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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the restriction unit is moved in a straight line along a first direction and restricts the movement of the second end of the linkage in a second direction, and the first direction is parallel or vertical to the second direction” are not supported by SPEC/drawing. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and/or is not supported by SPEC/drawings. Further clarification is required. In addition, fig 3A and Fig 3B clearly show that no matter in open or close position, the linkage is never in parallel or vertical position. Therefore, the 2nd end of the linkage is pulled by the cover in a direction between the parallel or vertical and never in parallel or vertical direction. The claimed limitations are never happened in the structure disclosed in the drawing. Unless, Applicant intended to claim the 2nd end is restricted to move along a specific direction.
The Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant(s) review all claims for any such similar issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and/or discussed in the above claim objections (see above objection) 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 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20210385962).
Regarding claim 1, Chang disclosed A case, (abstract, see also fig 1-7) comprising: a housing; a cover, pivoting on the housing (at least fig 2-3, a cover, pivoting on the housing; compare to fig 1), wherein the cover selectively rotates relatively to the housing (compare fig 1, fig 2); a restriction unit, connected to the cover and moveably connected to the housing (304 and associate parts), wherein an orientation of the cover is restricted by the restriction unit selectively (compare fig 1, fig 2); and a linkage, wherein a first end of the linkage pivots on the cover, a second end of the linkage pivots on the restriction unit (at least 307 and associate part), the restriction unit is moved in a straight line along a first direction (compare fig 1, fig 2) and restricts the movement of the second end of the linkage in a second direction (compare fig 1, fig 2), and the first direction is parallel or vertical to the second direction (compare fig 1, fig 2).
Regarding claim 16, Chang further disclosed A restriction mechanism, connected to a housing and a cover, the cover pivoting on the housing, (abstract, see also fig 1-7) comprising: a linkage (at least fig 3, 307 and associate part); and a restriction unit (at least fig 3, 304 and associate part), pivots on the linkage, wherein the cover is moved with the linkage for being rotated relatively to the housing (compare fig 1-2), the restriction unit is moved relatively to the housing via the linkage (compare fig 1-2), a first end of the linkage pivots on the cover, a second end of the linkage connects to the restriction unit (compare fig 1-2), the restriction unit is slidable and restricts the movement of the linkage (compare fig 1-2), the restriction unit is moved in a straight line along a first direction (compare fig 1-2) and restricts the movement of the second end of the linkage in a second direction (compare fig 1-2), and the first direction is parallel or vertical to the second direction (compare fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Chang further disclosed the housing has a receiving portion (at least fig 2-3, the receiving portion on the center), and the cover selectively rotates between a first orientation and a second orientation relatively to the housing (compare fig 1, fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chang further disclosed the restriction unit comprises a slider, the slider is connected to the housing (at least fig 2, 304 and associate parts), and selectively be moved between a first slider position and a second slider position relatively to the housing (compare fig 1-2), the second end of the linkage pivots on the slider (at least fig 2), when the cover is in the first orientation, the slider is in the first slider position, and when the cover is in the second orientation, the slider is in the second slider position (compare fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Chang further disclosed the restriction unit comprises a slider (at least fig 2, 304 and associate parts), the slider is connected to the housing (at least fig 2, 304 and associate parts), and the slider selectively moves between a first slider position and a second slider position relatively to the housing, the second end of the linkage pivots on the slider (compare fig 1-2).
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 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 of this title, 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 4-8, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20210385962) in view of Mo (US 9060426)
With regard claims 4, 18, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the slider comprises a slider wedging portion, the housing comprises a housing wedging portion, when the slider is in the second slider position, the slider wedging portion is wedged against the housing wedging portion.
Mo further teaches: the slider comprises a slider wedging portion (at least fig 7-10, any thick portion on the slider, Examiner consider as a wedging portion), the housing comprises a housing wedging portion (at least fig 7-10, any thick portion on the housing, Examiner consider as a wedging portion), when the slider is in the second slider position, the slider wedging portion is wedged against the housing wedging portion (compare fig 7-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (the wedging portions on both sides, slider, protrusion on elastic arm, housing, elastic arm with wedging portion, housing wedging portion comprises a slot, the slider wedging portion is wedged against an inner wall of the slot etc.) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the slider and housing portion) so as to further secure the modified structure on some positions.
Regarding claims 5, 19, Modified Chang further disclosed the slider comprises an elastic arm (at least Mo’s fig 3), the slider wedging portion is formed on a free end of the elastic arm (at least Mo’s fig 3), the housing wedging portion comprises a slot (at least Mo’s fig 3; see also fig 5-11), when the slider is in the second slider position, the slider wedging portion is wedged against an inner wall of the slot (compare fig 5-11).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Chang further disclosed the slider comprises a protrusion (compare fig 8-11, the protrusion is formed on the elastic arm, and the protrusion corresponds to the slot), the protrusion is formed on the elastic arm, and the protrusion corresponds to the slot (see fig 9-11).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Chang further disclosed the slider comprises a guiding groove, the housing comprises a guiding post, and the guiding post slides along the guiding groove (Chang’s fig 3). However, modified Chang teaches the guiding groove and post are located on opposite sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to swap the locations of the groove and post, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to provide a housing with less opening and/or reduce the cost.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Chang further disclosed the cover comprises a cover pivoting portion (compare fig 1, fig 3), the cover pivots on the housing via the cover pivoting portion (compare fig 1, fig 3), and when the cover is in the second orientation, the first end of the linkage, the second end of the linkage and the cover pivoting portion are not collinear (compare fig 1, fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that the combined teaching of Tanaka, Oguri, and Kevern fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 16. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established in connection with these claims. Furthermore, as it is Applicant's belief that a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established for claims 1 and 16, the Examiner's arguments in regard to the claims depending therefrom will not be addressed here. In this regard, Applicant's decision not to discuss the differences between the cited art and other features of claims 1, 16 and/or the dependent claims should not be construed as an admission that Applicant concurs with the Examiner's assertions and conclusions in connection with these claims.” (pages 6 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to current ground of rejection in the office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841