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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the top surface is convexly curved from the central area to the top wall periphery “. This limitation is described in lines 6-7 of claim 18 to which claim 20 is dependent from. Therefore, claim 20 does not further limit the limitations set forth in claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), and further in view of Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Rovegno teaches: a video processing system comprising:
a video processing apparatus (VPA) including:
a housing (85, fig. 4, ¶[0134]) having a bottom wall (annotated as ‘BW’ in annotated fig. 4 below), a top wall (annotated as ‘TW’ in annotated fig. 4 below) spaced apart from the bottom wall, the top wall comprising a top wall periphery (periphery of TW of housing 85, see annotated fig. 4 below);
an input port (84, fig. 4) adapted to receive video input signals from a videoscope (70, fig. 4,¶ [0134]); and
an output connector (30, fig. 4) adapted to transmit video output signals for presentation with a display module (¶[0090], ¶[0103], ¶[0132]), the output connector positioned in a rear side of the housing (as disclosed in fig. 4),
PNG
media_image1.png
593
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rovegno does not explicitly disclose:
a central area elevated relative to the top wall periphery, and a top surface extending from the central area to the top wall periphery, the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery;
the top wall forming a protective overhang over the output connector.
However, Rowsell teaches:
A housing (100, fig. 1b) comprising a central area (annotated as “CA’ in annotated fig. 1b below) elevated relative to a top wall periphery (annotated as “P’ in annotated fig. 1b below), and a top surface (annotated as “TS’ in annotated fig. 1b below) extending from the central area to the top wall periphery, the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 1b);
PNG
media_image2.png
477
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Rowsell’s teaching into Rovegno, so that a central area elevated relative to the top wall periphery, and a top surface extending from the central area to the top wall periphery, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Rovegno in view of Rowsell does not explicitly disclose:
the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top wall forming a protective overhang over the output connector
However, Tan discloses:
PNG
media_image3.png
524
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a top wall (26) comprising a central area elevated relative to a top wall periphery (see annotated fig. 5 below), and a top surface extending from the central area to the top wall periphery (see annotated fig. 5 below), the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery (examination of annotated fig. 5 below, and figs. 8C and 8F clearly discloses this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Tans’s teaching into Rovegno as modified by Rowsell, so that the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04). The modification would allow attachment of a support mechanism for peripheral devices as shown in fig. 2.
Rovegno in view of Rowsell and Tan does not explicitly disclose:
the top wall forming a protective overhang over the output connector
However, Wu teaches:
a housing (1, fig. 1) comprising a top wall (11, fig. 1) forming a protective overhang (as disclosed upon examination of figure 10 and ¶[0019) over an output connector (134, fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wu’s teaching into the combination of Rovegno, Rowsell and Tan, so that the top wall forming a protective overhang over the output connector, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (recess for interfaces within a housing) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wu (MPEP 2143). Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Regarding claim 16, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu, teach the limitations of claim 1, and Rowsell further teaches:
wherein the top surface extends convexly from the central area to the top wall periphery (as per the combination of Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu, teach the limitations of claim 1, and Rowsell further teaches:
wherein the top surface extends in a continuous manner from the central area to the top wall periphery (as per the combination of Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan of claim 1, would leave no openings present between the central area to the top wall periphery).
Regarding claim 18, Rovegno teaches: a video processing system comprising:
a video processing apparatus (¶[0001]) (VPA) including:
a housing (85, fig. 4, ¶[0134]) having a bottom wall (annotated as ‘BW’ in annotated fig. 4 below), a top wall (annotated as ‘TW’ in annotated fig. 4 below) spaced apart from the bottom wall, the top wall comprising a top wall periphery (periphery of TW of housing 85, see annotated fig. 4 below),
an input port (84, fig. 4) adapted to receive video input signals (¶[0142] from a videoscope (70, fig. 4,¶ [0134]); and
an output connector (30, fig. 4, ¶[0134]) adapted to transmit video output signals for presentation with a display module (¶[0090], ¶[0103], ¶[0132]), the output connector positioned in a rear side of the housing (see fig. 4),
PNG
media_image4.png
711
807
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rovegno does not explicitly disclose:
a central area elevated relative to the top wall periphery, and a top surface extending from the central area to the top wall periphery, the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery;
the top wall extending rearwardly thus forming a protective overhang over the output connector.
However, Rowsell teaches:
A housing (100, fig. 1b) comprising a central area (annotated as “CA’ in annotated fig. 1b above) elevated relative to a top wall periphery (annotated as “P’ in annotated fig. 1b below), and a top surface (annotated as “TS’ in annotated fig. 1b below) extending from the central area to the top wall periphery, the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery (as disclosed upon examination of fig. 1b);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Rowsell’s teaching into Rovegno, so that a central area elevated relative to the top wall periphery, and a top surface extending from the central area to the top wall periphery, the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Rovegno in view of Rowsell does not explicitly disclose:
the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top wall extending rearwardly thus forming a protective overhang over the output connector.
However, Tan discloses:
a top wall (26) comprising a central area elevated relative to a top wall periphery (see annotated fig. 5 below), and a top surface extending from the central area to the top wall periphery (see annotated fig. 5 below), the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery (examination of annotated fig. 5 below, and figs. 8C and 8F clearly discloses this limitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
524
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Tans’s teaching into Rovegno as modified by Rowsell, so that the central area being at most ½ of a surface area of the top periphery and the top surface being convexly curved from the central area toward the top wall periphery, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04). The modification would allow attachment of a support mechanism for peripheral devices as shown in fig. 2.
Rovegno in view of Rowsell and Tan does not explicitly disclose:
the top wall extending rearwardly thus forming a protective overhang over the output connector
However, Wu teaches:
a housing (1, fig. 1) comprising a top wall (11, fig. 1) extending rearwardly thus forming a protective overhang (as disclosed upon examination of figure 10 and ¶[0019) over an output connector (134, fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wu’s teaching into Rowsell’s as modified by Rovegno, so that the top wall extending rearwardly thus forming a protective overhang over the output connector, since claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (recess for interfaces within a housing) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Wu (MPEP 2143). Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Regarding claim 20, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 18, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the top surface is convexly curved from the central area to the top wall periphery (this limitation is met in claim 18).
Claims 2-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), and further in view of Chen et al (US 20100128425; “Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a bracket interface located within the central area of the top wall and supported by the housing and adapted to support a support bracket, and wherein the bracket interface defines a bracket interface periphery in the top surface.
However, Chen teaches:
a bracket interface (42 and 421, fig. 1) located within an area (where 42 is disposed, fig. 2) of a top wall (surface of 40, fig. 1) and supported by a base (i.e., housing) and adapted to support a support bracket (30, fig. 1), and wherein the bracket interface defines a bracket interface periphery (circumference of 42, fig.1) in the top surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Chen’s bracket interface adapted to support a support bracket, and wherein the bracket interface defines a bracket interface periphery in the top surface, into Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu, in order to provide a structure capable to support a display rotatable along a first axis and a second axis (¶[0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan, Wu and Chen, teaches the limitations of claim 2, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the top surface (from Rovegno as modified by Rowsell and Tan) curves between the bracket interface periphery (from Chen) and the top wall periphery (from Rovegno as modified by Rowsell and Tan).
Regarding claim 4, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 3, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the top surface (‘TS’ in annotated fig. 1b below from Rovegno as modified by Rowsell) extends convexly between the bracket interface periphery (which is located within the central area from Rovegno as modified by Rowsell and Tan, see annotated fig. 5 from Tan above) and the top wall periphery (‘P’ in annotated fig. 1b below, from Rovegno as modified by Rowsell).
PNG
media_image2.png
477
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 3, and the combination further teaches:
wherein the top surface extends in a continuous manner from the bracket interface periphery to the top wall periphery (this can been seen in fig. 1b above, where no openings or protrusions are present between the central area and the top wall periphery, and consequently in the resultant combination of Rovegno in view of Rowsell and Tan).
Regarding claim 6, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a bracket interface supported by the housing and configured to support a support bracket including a first retention feature and a base end, the bracket interface located within the central area of the top wall and comprising a bracket base receptacle and a second retention feature, the bracket base receptacle sized and shaped to receive the base end of the support bracket, and the second retention feature sized and shaped to cooperate with the first retention feature to removably retain the base end of the support bracket.
However, Chen teaches:
a bracket interface (42 and 421, fig. 1) supported by a base (40, i.e. housing, fig. 1) and configured to support a support bracket (30, fig. 1) including a first retention feature (621, fig. 1) and a base end (60, fig. 1), the bracket interface located within an area (where 42 is disposed, fig. 2) of a top wall (surface of 40, fig. 1) and comprising a bracket base receptacle (42, fig. 1) and a second retention feature (421, fig. 1), the bracket base receptacle sized and shaped to receive the base end of the support bracket (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1, 4-5), and the second retention feature sized and shaped to cooperate with the first retention feature to removably retain the base end of the support bracket (as disclosed upon examination of figs. 1, 4-5, ¶[0017]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Chen’s bracket interface adapted to support a support bracket, and bracket base receptacle sized and shaped to receive the base end of the support bracket, and including first and second retention features, into Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu, in order to provide a structure capable to support a display rotatable along a first axis and a second axis (¶[0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 6, and Chen further teaches:
further comprising the support bracket, wherein the support bracket comprises a swivel assembly (62, fig. 1), an arm (22, fig. 1) and a display end (12, and 24, fig. 1), the base end being opposite the display end (see fig. 1), wherein the arm extends between the base end and the display end (as disclosed in figs. 1 and 5), and wherein the display end includes a first pivot assembly (12, fig. 1) adapted to rotate a display module (10) about a second axis (“horizontal axis”, ¶[0019]) different than the first axis (“vertical axis”, ¶[0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 2, and Chen further teaches:
a display module (10, fig. 1) connected to the support bracket by the first pivot assembly (12 and 20, fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), and Chen et al (US 20100128425; “Chen” hereinafter), and further in view of Chi et al (US 20140118899; “Chi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the base end includes a second pivot assembly operable to rotate the arm about a third axis parallel to the second axis.
However, Chi discloses:
a base end (220, fig. 5a) includes a second pivot assembly (200, fig. 5a) operable to rotate an arm (210, fig. 2) about a third axis (A2, fig. 7c) parallel to a second axis (A3, fig. 7c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base end of Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu and Chen, and include Chi’s a second pivot assembly operable to rotate the arm about a third axis parallel to the second axis, in order to provide a display module which can pivot in more than one direction, thereby providing convenience in use and carrying and reducing the occupied space (¶[0060]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), Chen et al (US 20100128425; “Chen” hereinafter), and Chi et al (US 20140118899; “Chi” hereinafter), and further in view of Lee et al (US 20070215762; “Lee” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu, Chen and Chi teach the limitations of claim 8, and Chi further teaches:
wherein the swivel assembly comprises a swivel frame (222, fig. 4), and a pivot assembly support (221, fig. 2), but does not explicitly disclose:
a friction plate, the friction plate positioned between the swivel frame and the pivot assembly support.
However, Lee teaches:
a friction plate (50, fig. 2), the friction plate positioned between a swivel frame (45, fig. 2) and a pivot assembly support (30, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Lee’s friction plate positioned between the swivel frame and the pivot assembly support of Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu, Chen, and Chi, in order to provide a display module which has a good appearance and rotates stably and smoothly (¶[0052]-[0053]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), and Chen et al (US 20100128425; “Chen” hereinafter), and further in view of Lee et al (US 20070215762; “Lee” hereinafter).
.
Regarding claim 11, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 6, and Chen further teaches:
further comprising the support bracket, wherein the support bracket comprises a swivel assembly (62, fig. 1).
Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan, Wu and Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the swivel assembly comprises a swivel frame, a friction plate, and a pivot assembly support, the friction plate positioned between the swivel frame and the pivot assembly support.
However, Lee teaches:
a friction plate (50, fig. 2), the friction plate positioned between a swivel frame (45, fig. 2) and a pivot assembly support (30, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base end of Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Wu, Tan, and Chen and include Lee’s friction plate positioned between a swivel frame and a pivot assembly support, in order to provide a display module which has a good appearance and rotates stably and smoothly (¶[0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan, Wu, Chen, and Lee teach the limitations of claim 11, and Lee further teaches:
wherein the friction plate comprises a textured surface configured to provide a predetermined amount of swivel resistance (¶[0032]) to the swivel assembly (“friction member 50 having various thicknesses and disposed between the connecting member 30 and the lower base 45”, ¶[0028]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), and Chen et al (US 20100128425; “Chen” hereinafter), and further in view of Yang (CN 108832378; “Yang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan, Wu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 2, but do not explicitly teach:
further comprising a blank cover removably attachable to the bracket interface.
However, Yang teaches:
a blank cover (1, fig. 1) removably attachable to an orifice of an interface (201, fig. 1) disposed in a housing (2, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Yang’s blank cover into the bracket base receptacle of Rovegno as modified by Rowsell, Tan, Wu and Chen in order to protect the electronic components within the housing, the bracket interface is not in use (see at least ¶[0006]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), and further in view of Peterson et al (US 20060230296; “Peterson” hereinafter)
Regarding claim 19, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the top wall and the bottom wall form a rear protective recess.
However, Peterson discloses:
wherein a top wall (1303, fig. 13) and a bottom wall (1304, fig. 13) form a rear protective recess (706, fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Peterson’s teaching into Rowsell’s as modified by Rovegno and Wu, so that the top wall and the bottom wall form a rear protective recess, in order to provide a protective environment for the electronic components housed therein (¶[0066]). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the particular known technique (recess for interfaces within a housing) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Peterson (MPEP 2143). Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Rovegno (US 20050018042; “Rovegno” hereinafter), in view of Rowsell et al (US 20230131900; “Rowsell” hereinafter), Tan et al (US 7055160; “ Tan” hereinafter), Wu et al (US 20020085343; “Wu” hereinafter), and further in view of Van Vlerken (EP 3214911A1; “Vlerken” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a heat-sink extending at least partly below the bottom wall, the heat-sink overlapping, vertically, the central area.
However, Vlerken teaches:
A housing (22 and 23, fig. 3) comprising a heat-sink (26, fig. 3, 4b) extending at least partly (through hole 30, fig. 3, 4b) through a top wall (22, fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Vlerken’s heat sink extending beyond a housing wall, into Rovegno in view of Rowsell, Tan and Wu, so that the heat-sink extends at least partly below the bottom wall, the heat-sink overlapping, vertically, the central area, in order to remove heat generated by the electronic components within the housing during operation of the video processing apparatus (¶[0003]). The claim would have been obvious because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s Argument:
“Applicant submits, respectfully, that the Office action has not made a prima facie case of obviousness, for two reasons. First, "for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention." MPEP 2141.01(a). The Office action does not allege that D2 and D3 are analogous art and, therefore, failed to make a proper prima facie case.
A reference is analogous if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor but is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Second, the rationale for the combination is inapposite. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007), the Supreme Court stated that "[i]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. MPEP § 2142 states that "impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art." (Emphasis added.)”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that Rovegno, Rowsell, and Wu is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the office disagrees with regards the cited reference not being analogous art, since all cited references are within the field of electronic devices, and moreover directed towards information handling systems, as is the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the combination of elements cited prior art Rovegno, Rowsell, Tan and Wu, are common elements of enclosures pertinent to information handling systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KRIM whose telephone number is (703)756-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am -4:30pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/SAGAR SHRESTHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841