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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor US 2006/0016945 (hereinafter Taylor) in view of Suckle US 2011/0084182 (hereinafter Suckle).
Re. Cl. 1, Taylor discloses: A stand (Fig. 1) for a computing device (see Fig. 1, due to the shape and nature of 12, the device is capable of being used with a computing device as claimed in the intended use), comprising: a support platform (12, Fig. 1) with a top and a bottom (see Fig. 1), a front edge and a back edge (see Fig. 1); a base (42, Fig. 1) with a front edge, back edge and a center therebetween (see Fig. 1); and an adjustable-height stem (22, Fig. 1) extending vertically upward from proximate the back edge of the base to the bottom of the support proximate the back edge of the support platform (see Fig. 3, by being centrally aligned, the stem extends “proximate” or close to the back edge of the base 42 and “proximate” or close to the back edge of support platform 12), said stem comprising a first rigid stem element (38, Fig. 1) open at one end (see Fig. 1, where 34 is inserted) and a second rigid stem element (34, Fig. 1) slidingly engaged with the first rigid stem element through said open end (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cl. 2, Taylor discloses: a stem adjustment knob (40, Fig. 1-2), configured to allow the first stem element and second stem element to move with respect to each other in an open position, and to hold the first stem element and second stem element in fixed position with respect to each other in a closed position (see Paragraph 0023, Lines 4-7).
Re. Cl. 3, Taylor discloses: the stem adjustment knob is configured to allow the first stem element and second stem element to be rotated with respect to each other in the open position (see Fig. 1-2, by loosening 40 and having the members 34 and 38 shaped as illustrated, relative rotation would be allowed).
Re. Cl. 5, Taylor discloses: the support platform is configured to support a laptop computer (see Fig. 1-2, the flat surface 14 with lip 16 would enable a laptop computer to be supported thereon).
Re. Cl. 7, Taylor discloses: the stem is configured to be adjusted to a plurality of heights without reference to pre-set heights (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cl. 8, Taylor discloses: the support platform is rotatable with respect to the base (see Fig. 2, via rotating 34/24 within 38 or by rotating 14 about 28).
Re. Cl. 9, Taylor discloses: the stem elements form a telescoping column (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cl. 10, Taylor discloses: one or both elements of the stem are rotatable with respect to the base (see Fig. 2, 38 is rotatable with respect to the base using 52 within 54 and 34 is rotatable with respect to the base by loosening 40 and thus enabling 34 to rotate within 38).
Re. Cl. 11, Taylor discloses: the platform is rotatable with respect to at least one element of the stem (see Fig. 1-2, by rotating 24 within 34 with 36 loosened or about axis 28).
Re. Cl. 13, Taylor discloses: the base has a right side edge, a left side edge, and at least two of the edges are parallel (see Fig. 1-2, base 42 is shown as rectangular).
Re. Cl. 1, Taylor does not disclose wherein the stem is closer to the back edge of the base than the center of the base. Suckle discloses a stand for a computing device (Fig. 1) which includes a support platform (130) with a top, bottom, front edge and back edge (see Fig. 3), a base (120) with a front edge, a back edge and a center therebtween (see Fig. 3) and a stem (140), wherein the stem is closer to the back edge of the base than the center of the base (see Fig. 1,as having the stem located at the back edge of the base 120).
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 Taylor device to have its stem located closer to the back of the base than the center as disclosed by Suckle with reasonable expectation of success to provide space for items to be stacked under the support platform (i.e. papers, staplers, office supplies, etc.), thus reducing clutter in a workspace or providing more working space for the user. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Suckle as applied above, and in further view of Fitzpatrick US 2011/0147547 (hereinafter Fitzpatrick).
Re. Cl. 4, Taylor does not disclose a nonslip material affixed to at least part of the top of the platform. Fitzpatrick discloses a support stand (Fig. 13) which includes a platform (32, Fig. 13) having a nonslip material (96, Fig. 13) affixed to at least part of the top of the platform (see 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 modify the Taylor device to have the nonslip material of Fitzpatrick with reasonable expectation of success since Fitzpatrick states that such a modification assists in maintaining the object on the tray (Paragraph 0046, Lines 12-15).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Suckle as applied above and in further view of Chen US 2007/0109734 (hereinafter Chen).
Re. Cls. 14-15, Taylor disclose the base has a right side edge, a left side edge, (see Fig. 1-2, shown as being rectangular) but does not disclose the front edge is a different length than the back edge (Cl. 14) or the front edge is longer than the back edge (Cl. 15). Chen discloses a supporting stand (11-12, Fig. 1) which includes a base (12, Fig. 1) that has a front edge (see Fig. 1, edge which would lie under the screen of 10), a right side edge, a left side edge (see Fig. 1), and a back edge (see Fig. 1, edge which is closest to 124), and the front edge is a different length than the back edge (see Fig. 1); and or the front edge is longer than the back edge (see 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 modify the shape of the base in Taylor to be a trapezoid as disclosed by Chen with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the proposed combination of Taylor and Suckle would change the principle of operation of the portable podium of Taylor, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that by modifying Taylor to have its adjustable vertical support moved back towards the rear of the base would somehow change the operation of Taylor. Taylor’s stand is a portable podium which is intended to be used by lecturers, preachers or musicians to support work while performing. By moving the vertical support as proposed above, would not effect the principle of operation of the device since the device would still be able to function as necessary. Having the vertical support near the rear would not change or affect the operation of Taylor’s stand it would merely shift where the parts are located. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that moving the vertical support element to the back of the base would make the podium unstable and unbalanced and subject to tipping, the Examiner disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how to modify the Taylor stand to be balanced based on the disclosure of Suckle. For instance, Suckle clearly discloses a device where its adjustable vertical support (110) is located on the rear of the base and remains balanced and stable to support a laptop thereon (see Fig. 2). Based on that disclosure, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how to move Taylor’s vertical support to the rear of the base in a manner which is stable and balanced. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive since it does not appear to consider the evidence presented in the Suckle reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carty US 2013/0119000, Bi US 2008/0264885, Kaminosono US 2008/0186416 and Lindblad US 2007/0259554 disclose other known computing device supports which have their stems located closer to the back edge of the base than the center.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632