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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the recitation “each torsion” should be “each said torsion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 727 687 A1 (Chiu) in view of US 12,526,941 B2 (Lu).
With respect to claim 1: Chiu discloses a supporting assembly, the supporting assembly comprising: a holder (housing 1) having a base (bottom surface 12) from which a peripheral wall extends (Figs. 1-2: the not-numbered peripheral wall(s) forming a recess that accommodates the folded bodies 100, 102); a foldable unit (accommodation rack 10) mechanically attached to the holder within the peripheral wall (by virtue of the connecting units 1004, 1006 of the bodies 100, 102 and/or by virtue of the “first side” being integral with the “holder”), the foldable unit having a plurality of sides that include a first side (bottom surface 12), a second side (body 100) connected to the first side, the second side being movable relative to the first side, and a third side (body 102) connected to the first side, the third side being movable relative to the first side; wherein the foldable unit is configured to change between an open configuration (Fig. 2) and a closed configuration (Fig. 1).
Further regarding the claimed “peripheral wall”, the Applicant states at [0007] that in various embodiments, the peripheral wall overlaps only a portion of the plurality of sides (of the base) in a generally perpendicular direction relative to the base.
The two walls forming a recess in the bottom surface 12 of Chiu’s housing 1 overlap two portions of the plurality of side of the bottom surface 12 in a generally perpendicular direction relative to the bottom surface 12 (Chiu Figs. 1-2), and therefore meet the Applicant’s definition of “peripheral wall”.
The preamble of the claim recites “for an outdoor computing system”, which constitutes an intended use of the claimed “supporting assembly”. From MPEP 707.07(f):
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Chiu’s apparatus is capable of supporting a device that is an “outdoor computing system”, and the recitation “for an outdoor computing system” does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Ergo, Chiu’s apparatus meets “for an outdoor computing system” as recited in claim 1.
Chiu does not disclose “a plurality of springs including a first spring and a second spring, the first spring being attached between the first side and the second side, the second spring being attached between the first side and the third side” and/or “the foldable unit being maintained in the open configuration solely by the plurality of springs” as claimed.
Lu discloses a support frame 100a/b/c having a movable element 110a/b/c that deploys into a support position analogously to Serna’s kickstand arrangement 36. In the embodiment of Lu Figs. 3A-3M, the movable element 110c is biased by an elastic element 130d. The movable element 110c is released from the closed configuration (Figs. 3A-3G) by a switch assembly 120c, and is moved into the open configuration (Figs. 3H-3M) by the elastic element 130d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chiu’s rack 10 to include one of Lu’s elastic element 130d for each body 100, 102 – in order to move the bodies 100, 102 into the open configuration - similarly to Lu’s movable element 110c.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chiu’s housing 1 to include Lu’s switch assembly 120c in order to hold the rack 10 in the closed configuration and release the rack 10 for deployment – similarly to how the switch assembly 1230c is used for Lu’s movable element 110c.
In the modification, the added elastic elements 130d meet “a plurality of springs including a first spring and a second spring, the first spring being attached between the first side and the second side, the second spring being attached between the first side and the third side” as claimed.
In the modification, there is no structure or means which maintains (holds, secures, etc.) the bodies 100, 102 in the open configuration – beyond the added elastic elements 130d applying biasing force on the bodies 100, 102 in the opening direction thereof. This meets “the foldable unit being maintained in the open configuration solely by the plurality of springs” as claimed.
With respect to claim 2: Chiu, as modified, meets wherein the peripheral wall overlaps only a portion of the plurality of sides in a generally perpendicular direction relative to the base (two sides in Chiu Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3: Chiu, as modified, does not meet “wherein each of the second side and the third side is generally perpendicular to the first side when the foldable unit is in the open configuration” as claimed.
Chiu states that the angle of the bodies 100, 102 is “predetermined” ([0010], claim 1, claim 7), but could also be “arbitrary” ([0011]).
Lu shows it is known to have a supporting member (movable element 110a/b/c) generally perpendicular in the open configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chiu’s bodies 100, 102 to be generally perpendicular to the bottom of housing 1 in the open configuration, as an obvious variation of what is shown in Chiu Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 4: Chiu, as modified, meets wherein each of the second side and the third side is parallel to the first side when the foldable unit is in the closed configuration (Chiu Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5: Chiu, as modified, meets wherein each of the plurality of springs is a torsion spring (Lu col. 10, lines 32-59 disclose elastic element 130d is a torsion spring).
With respect to claim 18: Chiu, as modified, meets a telecommunication system comprising: a computing/communication device (one of Chiu’s “network communication devices”); and the supporting assembly of claim 1 coupled to a side of the computing/communication device.
Chiu, as modified, does not disclose the housing 1 used outdoors. Chiu’s “Background of the Invention” mentions the devices having different environmental conditions. Chiu claim 7 states the bodies 100, 102 touch a ground. Lu discloses the use of a stand for tablets, mobile phones, and monitors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chiu’s device to be used outdoors and/or to be a different device that is used outdoors (such as a mobile phone), in order to enable a user to have mobile communications outdoors.
With respect to claim 19: Chiu, as modified, meets wherein the supporting assembly is configured to prevent direct contact between an exterior surface of the outdoor computing/communication device (bottom of housing 1) and a surface on which the outdoor computing/communication device is placed (the ground, as in Chiu claim 7).
With respect to claim 20: Chiu, as modified, meets wherein the supporting assembly coupled to the outdoor computing/communication device is placed on the surface with the foldable unit in the open configuration (as in Chiu Fig. 3 and claim 7).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 727 687 A1 (Chiu) in view of US 12,526,941 B2 (Lu) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 9,784,406 B1 (Lin).
With respect to claim 6: Chiu in view of Lu does not meet “wherein each torsion spring has a first leg and a second leg, the first leg being generally perpendicular to the second leg in the open configuration, the first leg being generally parallel to the second leg in the closed configuration” as claimed.
Lu Figs. 3A-3M show the elastic element 130d has at least one leg, but are not detailed enough to show two legs and the claimed positioning thereof.
Lin shows it is known for a torsion spring 325 to have two legs that are generally perpendicular in the open configuration (Figs. 2-4 and 6) and generally parallel in the closed configuration (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chiu’s bodies 100, 102 to be biased by Lin’s torsion springs 325, because that would predictably bias the bodies 100, 102 towards the open configuration as intended/desired.
With respect to claim 7: Chiu, as modified, meets wherein: the first leg of the first spring is attached to the first side and the second leg of the first spring is attached to the second side (one leg of the first spring 325 abuts bottom surface 12, and the other leg of the first spring 325 abuts body 100); and the first leg of the second spring is attached to the first side and the second leg of the second spring is attached to the third side (one leg of the second spring 325 abuts bottom surface 12, and the other leg of the second spring 325 abuts body 102).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-17 is/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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637